# Vidyadhar Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 448
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-23
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 41730 of 2018
- **Bench:** Deepak Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vidyadhar-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46027
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code (2 of 1974),- Section 482 -
Inherent power - Quashing of criminal
proceedings - Compromise - Indian
Penal Code- Sections 323,506,498-A -
matrimonial disputes - If parties want
to move on in a matrimonial dispute
on the basis of compromise, they may
be allowed to compound the offences
in
terms
of
settlement
-
After
compromise/settlement
arrived
at
between the parties, the chance of
ultimate conviction is bleak - no
useful purpose is likely to be served
by allowing a criminal prosecution to
continue, as the same would be futile
exercise and a sheer wastage of
precious
time
of
the
Court
-
continuation of a criminal proceedings
after
compromise
would
cause
oppression
and
prejudice
to
the
parties concerned (Para 14, 15)

Commission of offence u/Ss.323,506,498-A
of Penal Code - Matter related to matrimonial
dispute - Parties to dispute arrived at
amicable settlement - No useful purpose to
be served by allowing criminal prosecution
against accused - Summoning order against
applicant quashed (Para 14 15 16)

Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 161CrPC being wholly
inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken
into consideration by the Court, while
adjudicating a petition filed under Section
482 CrPC1.

9. Moreover, the High Court was
aware that one of the witnesses mentioned
that the deceased informed him about the
harassment meted out by Respondent Nos.1
to 3 which she was not able to bear and
hence wanted to commit suicide. The High
Court committed an error in quashing
criminal proceedings by assessing the
statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C.

10. We have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter. The
High Court ought not to have quashed the
proceedings at this stage, scuttling a fullfledged trial in which Respondent Nos.1 to
3 would have a fair opportunity to prove
their innocence."(Emphasis supplied)

26. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court finds that the submissions made by
the applicants' learned counsel call for
adjudication on pure questions of fact
which may adequately be adjudicated upon
only by the trial court and while doing so
even the submissions made on points of
law can also be more appropriately gone
into by the trial court in this case. This
Court does not deem it proper, and
therefore cannot be persuaded to have a
pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A
threadbare discussion of various facts and
circumstances, as they emerge from the
allegations made against the accused, is
being purposely avoided by the Court for
the reason, lest the same might cause any
prejudice to either side during trial. But it
shall suffice to observe that the perusal of
the F.I.R. and the material collected by the
Investigating Officer on the basis of which
the charge sheet has been submitted makes
out a prima facie case against the accused
at this stage and there appear to be
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. I do not find any justification to
quash the charge sheet or the proceedings
against the applicants arising out of them as
the case does not fall in any of the
categories recognized by the Apex Court
which may justify their quashing. All the
judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the applicants referred to above
are clearly distinguishable in the facts of
the present case.

27. The prayer for quashing the impugned
charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of
the aforesaid State case are refused, as I do not
see any abuse of the court's process at this pretrial stage.

28. The present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, rejected. There
shall be no order as to costs.

29. Written submissions filed by the
learned counsel for the applicants, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned
A.G.A. for the State are taken on record.

30 Interim order, if any, stands
discharged.
----------
(2021)01ILR A448
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 41730 of 2018

Vidyadhar Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
1 All. Vidyadhar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
449
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Alok Kumar Rai, Sri Manoj Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code (2 of 1974),- Section 482 -
Inherent power - Quashing of criminal
proceedings - Compromise - Indian
Penal Code- Sections 323,506,498-A -
matrimonial disputes - If parties want
to move on in a matrimonial dispute
on the basis of compromise, they may
be allowed to compound the offences
in
terms
of
settlement
-
After
compromise/settlement
arrived
at
between the parties, the chance of
ultimate conviction is bleak - no
useful purpose is likely to be served
by allowing a criminal prosecution to
continue, as the same would be futile
exercise and a sheer wastage of
precious
time
of
the
Court
-
continuation of a criminal proceedings
after
compromise
would
cause
oppression
and
prejudice
to
the
parties concerned (Para 14, 15)

Commission of offence u/Ss.323,506,498-A
of Penal Code - Matter related to matrimonial
dispute - Parties to dispute arrived at
amicable settlement - No useful purpose to
be served by allowing criminal prosecution
against accused - Summoning order against
applicant quashed (Para 14 15 16)

Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :-

1. B.S. Joshi & ors. Vs St. of Har. & anr.
(2003) 1 SCC (Cri) 848

2. St. Of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors. AIR
2019 SC 1296
3.
Parbatbhai
Aahir
@
Parbhatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj.
& anr. Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017

(Delivered by Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Vijay Tripathi, learned
counsel for opposite party No.2, learned
AGA and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
has been filed with a prayer to quash the
Complaint Case No.1172 of 2018 (Nisha
Singh vs. Vidyadhar Singh and others),
under Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and
3/4 D.P. Act, as well as impugned
summoning order dated 20.09.2018 passed
by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sonbhadra.

3. It is germane to give actual facts
regarding case. On 16.06.2017 opposite
party No.2 filed complaint against the
applicants and three other persons alleging
therein that before marriage applicants
came to parental house for solemnizing
matrimonial ceremonies and that time
demanded Rs.2 lacs dowry from her father
and threatened them that if they did not
fulfil the demand then applicant No.1 will
not marriage her, thereafter some relatives
intervened
then
applicant
ready
for
marriage on condition that after marriage
they would give Rs.2 lacs thereafter
marriage was solemnize on 17.02.2016 and
complainant went to her in-laws house,
when father of complainant could not fulfil
the demand of Rs.2 lacs they started torture
and cruelty against her. Complainant told
about cruelty of applicant to her father,
complainant's father came and convinced
them but they did not agree and continued
threatening and tortured the complainant.
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
At last on 27.06.2016 they beaten and
threatened her and thrown her out of house.
Complainant filed complaint against the
applicant and Magistrate after taking
statement under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C., summoned the applicants under
Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and
Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on
20.09.2018. Applicant by way of aforesaid
482 Application challenged the complaint
case as well as summoning order dated
20.09.2018 passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), FTC/Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra on the
ground that entire allegations of case are
baseless, false and concocted and no
occurrence was taken place. No injury
caused to opposite party No.2 but due to
false implication and undue harassment, the
opposite party No.2 taken false and
fabricated stand in order to harass and
humiliate
the
applicant.
He
further
submitted that opposite party No.2 is a
married lady and lived in a modern style
and she dislike the living style of the
applicants whereas the applicant No.1
always wants to keep opposite party No.2
with him and lead a happy marriage life
with her with full honour and dignity but
due to aggressive and non co-operative
attitude of opposite party no.2, the
Applicant No.1 filed Case No.274 of 2017
against opposite party No.2 under Section 9
of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of
conjugal rights before Principal Judge,
Family Court, Ranchi which was decreed in
favour of applicant No.1 on 15.09.2017. He
further submitted that cause of action of the
present case arose in District Ranchi,
Jharkhand and in view of Hon'ble Apex
Court law laid down in case of Geeta
Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., reported in
2012 (10) ADJ 464 (SC). The aforesaid
complaint case is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of jurisdiction and further
impugned order as well as proceedings are
arbitrary and mala fide and not supported
by documentary evidence.

4. This Court on 20.11.2018 passed
the following order:

"Heard learned counsel for the
applicants
and
Miss. Poonam Singh
Sengar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

This petition under Section 482,
Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
proceedings
of
complaint
Case
No.
1172/2018, under sections 323, 506, 498A
IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (Nisha
Singh Vs. Vidyadhar Singh and others) as
well as the impugned summoning order
dated 20.09.2018 passed by Civil Judge
(Senior Division), F.T.C./Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

It
is
contended
by
learned
counsel for the applicants that the husband
as well as entire family members of the
husband-applicant no. 1 have been falsely
implicated in the present case by the
opposite party no.2 on the general
allegations, which is against the well
settled principles of law as laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10)
SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra
and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.

So far as the husband-applicant
no.
1
namely,
Vidyadhar
Singh
is
concerned following orders is being
passed:-

From the perusal of the material
on record and looking into the facts of the
case at this stage it cannot be said that no
offence is made out against the applicant.
All the submission made at the bar relates
to the disputed question of fact, which
1 All. Vidyadhar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
451
cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court
in exercise of power conferred under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.. At this stage only
prima facie case is to be seen in the light of
the law laid down by Supreme Court in
cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab,
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of
Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192
and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another
(Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The
disputed defence of the accused cannot be
considered at this stage. Moreover, the
applicant have got a right of discharge
under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245
Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a
proper application for the said purpose and
they are free to take all the submissions in
the said discharge application before the
Trial Court.

The prayer for quashing the
proceedings is refused.

However, it is provided that if
the applicant no. 1
appears and
surrenders before the court below
within 30 days from today and applies
for bail, then the bail application of the
applicant be considered and decided in
view of the settled law laid by this
Court in the case of Amrawati and
another Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in
2009
(3)
ADJ
322
(SC)
Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of
U.P. For a period of 30 days from today
or till the disposal of the application for
grant of bail whichever is earlier, no
coercive action shall be taken against
the applicant. However, in case, the
applicant does not appear before the
Court
below
within
the
aforesaid
period, coercive action shall be taken
against him.

With the aforesaid directions, this
application is finally disposed off so far as
applicant no. 1 is concerned.

So far as the applicant nos. 2 and
3 are concerned the following orders is
being passed:-

Issue notice to the opposite party
no.2 returnable within four weeks. Steps be
taken within a week.

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is
granted four weeks time to file counter
affidavit. The opposite party no. 2 may also
file counter affidavit within the said period.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the
applicants two week thereafter is granted
for filing rejoinder affidavit.

List after expiry of the aforesaid
period before appropriate Court.

Till the next date of listing, no
coercive action shall be taken against the
applicant Nos. 2 and 3 in the aforesaid
case."

5. Thereafter short counter affidavit
has been filed by opposite party No.2
alleging therein after mutual consent both
applicant No.1 (husband) and opposite
party No.2 (wife) settled their disputes
including the criminal case registered as
Case Crime No.1172 of 2018 filed under
Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and
Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Both
the parties came to settlement and prepared
joint compromise petition under Section
13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on
29.01.2019 filed in the Family Court,
Sonbhadra with prayer to divorce decree be
granted in terms of compromise, the same
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been filed with the short counter
affidavit.
He
further
submitted
that
opposite
party
No.2
has
expressed
willingness to respect and abide by the
terms and conditions. He prays for
quashing of proceedings of Complaint Case
No.1172 of 2018, under Sections 323, 506,
498-A I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry
Prohibition
Act
(Nisha
Singh
Vs.
Vidyadhar Singh and others).

6. This Court by order dated
21.09.2020 has passed the following order:

"Learned counsel for both sides
are present.

It is being argued that parties
have entered in compromise.

Let a compromise be filed before
trial Court, where, it shall be verified and
after its due verification, the same along
with order of trial Court be filed by way of
supplementary affidavit.

List before the appropriate Bench
on 20.10.2020.

Interim order, if any, shall
continue till the next date."

7. C.J.M., Sonebhadra in compliance
of order dated 21.09.2020 submitted a
report that which is on record. Appellant
and his wife, opposite party No.2 (Nisha
Singh) filed compromise application with
affidavit and they were verified by their
counsels, namely, Sri Ravi Prakash Tripathi
and Sri T. P. Gupta.

8.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case there is no need
to proceedings be further go on in terms of
the above points.

9. Learned Additional Government
Advocate as well as learned counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2
do not dispute the aforesaid fact. Learned
counsel for opposite party No. 2 has also
submitted at the Bar that since the parties
concerned have settled their dispute as
mentioned above, therefore, opposite party
No.2 has no grievance and has no objection
in
quashing
the
impugned
criminal
proceedings against the applicant.

10. After having heard the arguments
of learned counsel for the parties, before
proceedings further, it is apposite to give
reference of some judgments of the Apex
Court, wherein the Apex Court has laid
down the guideline for quashing of
criminal proceedings arising out of noncompoundable offences under Section 320
Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise and
amicable settlement of matrimonial cases
between the parties concerned, which are as
follows:-

(i) The Apex Court in case of B.S.
Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and
another (2003) 1 SCC (Cri) 848 gave its
approving nod to the existence and exercise
of High Court's power to quash the
criminal proceedings on compromise in
suitable matrimonial cases. Paragraph nos.
14 and 15 of the said judgment are
reproduced herein-below:-

"14. There is no doubt that the
object
of
introducing
Chapter
XX-A
containing Section 498A in the Indian
Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a
woman by her husband or by relatives of
her husband. Section 498A was added with
a view to punishing a husband and his
relatives who harass or torture the wife to
coerce her or her relatives to satisfy
unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-
1 All. Vidyadhar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
453
technical view would be counter productive
and would act against interests of women
and against the object for which this
provision was added. There is every
likelihood that non-exercise of inherent
power to quash the proceedings to meet the
ends of justice would prevent women from
settling earlier. That is not the object of
Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

15. In view of the above
discussion, we hold that the High Court
in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint and Section 320 of the Code
does not limit or affect the powers under
Section 482 of the Code."

(ii) The Apex Court in case of
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi
Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296,
considering
previous
judgments
and
section 320 Cr.P.C. has laid down
guideline for exercising the inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in case
of settlement of dispute between the
parties concerned. Paragraph no. 13 of
the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"13. Considering the law on the
point and the other decisions of this
Court
on
the
point,
referred
to
hereinabove, it is observed and held as
under:

(i) that the power conferred
under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the criminal proceedings for the noncompoundable offences under Section
320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the
civil character, particularly those arising
out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes and when the parties have
resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;

(ii) such power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious
impact on society;

(iii) similarly, such power is not
to be exercised for the offences under the
special
statutes
like
Prevention
of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim
and the offender;

(iv) offences under Section 307
IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences
and therefore are to be treated as crime
against the society and not against the
individual
alone,
and
therefore,
the
criminal proceedings for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc.,
which have a serious impact on the society
cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves.
However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention
of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge
is framed under this provision. It would be
open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC
is there for the sake of it or the prosecution
has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to framing the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it
would be open to the High Court to go by
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the nature of injury sustained, whether such
injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts
of the body, nature of weapons used etc.
However, such an exercise by the High
Court would be permissible only after the
evidence is collected after investigation and
the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not
permissible when the matter is still under
investigation.
Therefore,
the
ultimate
conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of
the decision of this Court in the case of
Narinder Singh (supra) should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole
and
in
the
circumstances
stated
hereinabove;

(v) while exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings in respect of non
compoundable offences, which are private
in nature and do not have a serious impart
on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim
and the offender, the High Court is
required to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused,
namely,
whether
the
accused
was
absconding and why he was absconding,
how he had managed with the complainant
to enter into a compromise etc."

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgment while deciding Criminal Appeal
No.1723 of
2017
in
the
case
of
Parbatbhai
Aahir
@
Parbhatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs.
State
of
Gujarat
and
another
has
considered the decision in State of Tamil
Nadu vs. R Vasanthi Stanley, the Court
rejected the submission that the first
respondent was a woman "who was
following the command of her husband"
and had signed certain documents without
being aware of the nature of the fraud
which was being perpetrated on the bank.
Rejecting the submission, this Court held
that:

"14...
Lack
of
awareness,
knowledge or intent is neither to be
considered nor accepted in economic
offences. The submission assiduously
presented
on
gender
leaves
us
unimpressed.
An offence
under
the
criminal law is an offence and it does not
depend upon the gender of an accused.
True it is, there are certain provisions in
Code of Criminal Procedure relating to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section
437, etc. therein but that altogether
pertains to a different sphere. A person
committing a murder or getting involved
in a financial scam or forgery of
documents, cannot claim discharge or
acquittal on the ground of her gender as
that
is
neither
constitutionally
nor
statutorily a valid argument. The offence
is gender neutral in this case. We say no
more on this score.

15....... A grave criminal offence
or serious economic offence or for that
matter
the
offence
that
has
the
potentiality to create a dent in the
financial health of the institutions, is not
to be quashed on the ground that there is
delay in trial or the principle that when
the matter has been settled it should be
quashed to avoid the load on the system
........"

12. The broad principles which
emerge from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following
propositions :

(i) Section 482 preserves the
inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any
1 All. Vidyadhar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
455
court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It
only recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court;

(ii)
The
invocation
of
the
jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
First Information Report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding
an
offence.
While
compounding an offence, the power of the
court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence
is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion
whether a criminal proceeding or complaint
should be quashed in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482, the High
Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the
inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of
the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a
complaint or First Information Report
should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power
under Section 482 and while dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and
dacoity
cannot
appropriately
be
quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii)
As
distinguished
from
serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing in so far as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving
offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil
flavour may in appropriate situations fall
for quashing where parties have settled the
dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceeding if
in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and
prejudice;

13. On going through the judgments
referred herein above makes it very clear
that even in the cases which involved non
compoundable offences, their quashing has
been approved by the Apex Court if the
nature of the offence is such which does
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not
have
grave
and
wider
social
ramifications and where the dispute is more
or less confined between the litigating
parties. The inherent jurisdiction of this
Court may be suitably exercised if the
parties inter-se have mutually decided to
bury the hatchet and settle the matter
amicably in between them in a criminal
litigation emanating from matrimonial
disputes, which are quintessentially of civil
nature and other criminal litigations, which
do not have grave and deleterious social
fall-outs. The Court in the wider public
interest may suitably exercise its power in
appropriate case and terminate the pending
proceedings in order to secure ends of
justice or to prevent an abuse of the process
of any court. Such positive exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction can also find its
vindication in a more pragmatic reason.
When the complainant of a case or the
victim of the offence itself expresses its
resolve not to give evidence against the
accused
in
the
back
drop
of
the
compromise between the parties inter-se or
if the fact of inter-se compromise in
between the parties is apparent on the face
of record, and they are still called upon the
depose in the Court, they in all probability,
go back on their words and resile from their
previous statements, the truthfulness of
which is best known only to themselves.
They are in such circumstances very likely
to eat their words and perjure themselves.
The solemn proceedings of the Court often
get reduced to a sham exercise and farce in
such circumstances. The proceedings can
hardly be taken to their logical culmination
and in such circumstances, the prospect of
the conviction gets lost.

14. The object of criminal law is
primarily to visit the offender with
certain consequences. He may be made to
suffer
punishment
or
by
paying
compensation to the victim, but the law at
the same time also provides that it may
not be necessary in every criminal
offence
to
mete
out
punishment,
particularly, if the parties concerned
wants to bury the hatchet. If they want to
move on in a matrimonial dispute on the
basis of compromise, they may be
allowed to compound the offences in
terms of settlement.

15. After compromise/settlement
arrived at between the parties in the
present case, the chance of ultimate
conviction is bleak and therefore, no
useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing a criminal prosecution against
the applicant to continue, as the same
would be futile exercise and a sheer
wastage of precious time of the Court.
The
continuation
of
a
criminal
proceedings after compromise would
cause oppression and prejudice to the
parties concerned.

16. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case in the light of
dictum and guideline laid down by the
Apex Court as mentioned above, this
Court feels that this is a fit case, where
this Court can exercise its inherent power
to secure the end of justice. In view of
above interest of justice would be met, if
the prayer of parties is acceded to and the
criminal proceedings and other litigation
between the parties is brought to an end.

17. As a fallout and consequence of
above
discussions,
Complaint
Case
No.1172 of 2018 (Nisha Singh vs.
Vidyadhar
Singh
and
others),
under
Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4
D.P. Act, as well as impugned summoning
order
dated
20.09.2018
against
the
applicants are hereby quashed.
1 All. Shayamdhar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457

18. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of
compromise as mentioned above.
----------
(2021)01ILR A457
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Writ C No. 11910 of 2015

Shayamdhar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Govind Krishna, Sri Uday Singh, Sri
Abhishek Krishna

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Constitution of Gram
Panchayat
-
delimitation
and
separation of village - guidelines for
re-organization/delimitation of gram
panchayats - legislative functions and
policy matters of the State are not to
be interfered ordinarily by the Court.
(Para - 8)

Petitioner is resident of village Bhavapur, gram
panchayat
Deeha,
Tehsil
Soraon,
District
Allahabad - engaged in cultivation - State
Government issued the order setting forthwith
the guidelines for re-organization/delimitation of
gram panchayats - District Magistrate rejected
representation of the petitioner with regard to
delimitation and separation of village, Bhavapur
from gram panchayat Deeha - ground -
representation has been submitted after expiry
of the period within which objection ought to
have been filed. (Para - 2,3)
HELD:- Constitution of Gram Panchayat,
decision to include a particular area in a
particular local body etc., are all legislative
functions and policy matters of the State.
Interference therein is not ordinarily within the
domain of Court unless it is shown that exercise
is in violence of some statutory provisions or the
constitutional provisions or is so patently
arbitrary.(Para -7)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited :-

1. St. of Punj. Vs. Tehal Singh & ors.. , JT
(2002) 5 SC 40

2.
U.O.I.
&
ors.
Vs
Kannadapara
Sanghatanegala Okkuta & Kannadigara & ors. ,
(2002) 10 SCC 226

3. Collector & ors. Vs. P. Mangamma & ors. ,
(2003) 4 SCC 488

4. St. of Raj. & ors. vs. Lata Arun , (2002) 6 SCC
252

 5. Premium Granites & anr. Vs St. of T.N. &
ors. , (1994) 2 SCC 691.

6. H.P.Vs. High Court of H.P. , (2000) 10 SCC
646

7. J.R. Raghupathy & ors.. Vs St. of A.P. & ors..
AIR 1988 SC 1681

8. Federation of Railway Officers Association &
ors. Vs U.O.I. , (2003) 4 SCC 289.

9. Samvidhan Bahali Andolan & anr. Vs U.O.I. &
ors. , AIR 1998 All 210

10. Baldev Singh Vs St. of H.P. , AIR 1987 SC
1239

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
& Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)