Allahabad High Court
Sachin And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 July, 2023
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:149472 Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26705 of 2023 Applicant :- Sachin And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 768 of 2019 (State Vs. Sachin and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 674 of 2018, under Section 366 IPC (against applicant no. 1) and 366, 376 IPC (against applicant no. 2), P.S. Gangoh, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Saharanpur.
3. As per the allegations made in the first information report registered vide Case Crime No. 674 of 2018, under Section 366 IPC, it is alleged thaton 29.11.2018 at about 8:30 p.m., his daughter Sonam was enticed away by Sachin and his brother in-law Sachin in a vehicle. The said first information report was lodged by one Rajesh Kumar. After the registration of the first information report, the investigating officer has recorded the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, it is alleged that on 29.11.2018 at 8:30 p.m. while she was returning from her uncle house, her brother in-law Sachin met him and had forcibly taken her in a vehicle where he had handed over her custody to Sachin son of Babu Ram and his brother in-law left the place. Thereafter Sachin son of Babu Ram is said to have taken her in a field and committed the offence of rape on her. During the course of investigation, statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded, in which, also the factum of forcibly taking her away by Sachin son of Ompal and offence of committing rape upon her by Sachin son of Babu Ram has been categorically stated. On the basis of said statements and after concluding the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the applicants. On the basis of said charge sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that earlier an application u/s 482 No. 16160 of 2023 challenging the charge sheet and cognizance order dated 12.12.2019, however after some arguments, got the said petition dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 3.5.2023. Again the instant application has been filed to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case on the basis of compromise. Applicant No. 2 and victim are said to have subsequently married.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to an alleged compromise dated 13.6.2023 made between the applicants and his brother first informant Rajesh Kumar. It is further submitted that on the basis of said compromise, entire proceedings under Section 366 IPC against the applicant No. 1 and under Sections 366/376 IPC against applicant No. 2 be quashed.
6. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicants has placed a reliance on a Judgment reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1389, Jatin Agarwal Vs. State of Telangana and another.
7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., prima facie offence under Sections 366 and 376 IPC is clearly made out against the applicants.
8. Learned AGA has next submitted that offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC are non compoundable offences, heinous in nature and offences against the public, having serious societal impact and, therefore, such offence cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise made between the first informant and the accused persons. Moreso, when in the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim herself has reiterated that the applicants forcibly kidnapped her and thereafter applicant No. 2 is said to have committed the offence of rape on her in a field and corroborates the prosecution story. He has further submitted that in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot quash the proceedings at the initial stage when the entire evidence is yet to come on the basis of compromise as these are serious offences and Apex Court in several of its decisions has held that such offences, which are heinous in nature having wide societal impact cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise and as such, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.
9. Having considered the rival submission of the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that the applicant kidnapped her and thereafter applicant No. 2 repeatedly committed rape on her, as such, offences under Section 366/376 IPC is clearly made out against them.
10. It is further germane to point out that such offences are offences of heinous nature and are offences against society having a large societal impact and, therefore, could not be quashed on the basis of compromise. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is clearly distinguishable on facts as in the said case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to do complete justice in the matter has quashed the proceedings, however, in my opinion, such powers are not available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. In Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, it has been observed that in respect of offence against the society it is the duty to punish the offender. Hence, even where there is a settlement between the offender and victim the same shall not prevail since it is in interest of the society that offender should be punished which acts as deterrent for others from committing similar crime. On the other hand, there may be offences falling in the category where the correctional objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage than the theory of deterrent punishment. In such cases, the court may be of the opinion that a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations between them and would resolve a festering private dispute and thus may exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings or the complaint or the FIR as the case may be.
12. Further in Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2020, Arun Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. through its Secretary & Another reported in (2020) 3 SCC 736 it has been held that bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down, we are of the view that offences for which the appellants have beencharged are infact offences against society and not private in nature. Such offences have serious impact upon society and continuance of trial of such cases is founded on the overridding effect of public interests in punishing persons for such serious offences. It is neither an offence arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or such similar transactions or has any element of civil dispute thus it stands on a distinct footing. In such cases, settlement even if arrived at between the complainant and the accused, the same cannot constitute a valid ground to quash the F.I.R. or the charge sheet.
13. Thus, following principles laid down in several of its decision and keeping in mind the fact that the offences of rape are heinous offences having large societal impact and offences against society, therefore, in my opinion the said proceedings cannot be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
14. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2023 KU