Allahabad High Court
Shivanshu Singh @ Satyam Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124482 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13458 of 2019 Applicant :- Shivanshu Singh @ Satyam Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ami Tandon,G.A.,Pranshu Gupta,Sagar Mehrotra Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Rishabh Agrawal (AoR No. A/R 0944/21) holding brief of Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Tandon, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 as well as Shri S.K. Singh, learned A.G.A.
2. This is an application U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant is to quash the charge sheet dated 13.04.2018, under Sections 376, 493, 506, 504 IPC in case crime no.37 of 2018, Police Station-Sector 24, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar as well as the summoning order dated 30.11.2018 in Criminal Misc. Case No.7957 of 2018 (State vs. Satyam Singh@Shivanshu Singh) arising out of case crime no.37 of 2018 under Sections 376, 493, 506, 504 IPC, Police Station-Sector 24, NOIDA pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a first information report stood lodged by the opposite party No. 4 against the applicant under Sections 376, 493, 506, 504 IPC being FIR No. 0037 of 2018. Thereafter post recording of the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the applicant under Sections 376, 493, 506, 504 IPC on 13.04.2018 summoning the applicant on 30.11.2018. The same was subject matter of challenge by the applicant by means of the present application, wherein this Court on 09.04.2019 proceeded to pass the following orders:
"Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shaivya Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 as well as learned A.G.A.
By means of the present application, the prayer sought by the applicant is to quash the charge sheet dated 13.04.2018, summoning order dated 30.11.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No.7957 of 2018(State vs. Satyam Singh@Shivanshu Singh) arising out of case crime no.37 of 2018 under Sections 376, 493, 506, 504 IPC, Police Station-Sector 24, NOIDA pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Gautam Budh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the FIR lodged by one Rupa Rani Pathak, mother of the victim which has come into existence on 22.12.2017 as Case Crime No.581 of 217, Police Station-Maharajganj, District-Faizabad but the charge sheet was submitted at Police Station-Sector-24, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar and the learned Ist, A.C.J.M. has taken cognizance of the offence on 30.11.2018. The contents of the FIR itself is a self-contradictory. In the first part, there is an allegation of extending threats that on the gun point, her modesty was outraged thereafter, yet another facet to the entire issue was added of extending the promise to marry and thereafter, established the physical relationship with the victim.
To the mind of the Court, both these two contrary emotions i.e. threats and promise to marry cannot go hand-in-hand. Moreover, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it has been mentioned that the victim is working in a well reputed I.T. company at NOIDA on the post of Senior Executive and working since 15.01.2017. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the victim admits her acquaintance with the applicant and on her permission, the applicant stayed with the victim. She further submits that on a gun point, the applicant has committed rape with her and has taken some video clips. Thereafter, she has further alleged that she was constantly subject matter of sexual assault by the applicant. As mentioned above, in her 164 Cr.P.C statement too, she has added the angle of promise to marry. It is quite abnormal that she was constantly subject matter of sexual assault for a quite long period but she has never ever raised any objection or complaint and now angle of marriage has been added. It is unthinkable that a person, who has extended threat and after crushing soul of the girl established relationship, would extend the promise to marry and the girl would readily agree to this proposal. There is no video clip recovered by the police during the course of investigation. Admittedly, the victim is a Senior Executive in a well established I.T. company at NOIDA. All these factors taken cumulatively indicates otherwise.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR (2019) SC 327 as well as Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Kerala (2014) 2 SCC (Criminal) 663 to buttress his contention.
Ms. Shaivya Agarwal has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.4 vehemently opposed the contention but could not dispute the aforementioned facts and the legal proposition.
Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 is directed to file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter.
List this matter in the second week of May, 2019 before appropriate Court.
Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of charge sheet dated 13.04.2018, summoning order dated 30.11.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No.7957 of 2018(State vs. Satyam Singh@Shivanshu Singh) arising out of case crime no.37 of 2018 under Sections 376, 493, 506, 504 IPC, Police Station-Sector 24, NOIDA pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Gautam Budh Nagar shall remain stayed with the condition as law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and other Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 28.03.2018, which reads as under :-
"Situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy was required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings were held up. At times, proceedings were adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay was vacated, intimation was not received and proceedings were not taken up. It was directed that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of civil or criminal trial was operating, the same would come to end on expiry of six months from today unless in exceptional case by speaking order such stay was extended. In cases where stay was granted in future, same would end on expiry of six months from date of such order unless similar extension was granted by speaking order."
It is made clear that in the event, if the pleadings are not exchanged or any non-co-operation by contesting parties in filing their counter version, it would be open for the Court to pass any suitable order at the end of abovementioned upper limit of six months."
4. Thereafter the parties themselves entered into compromise on 23.11.2020, the following orders have been passed:
"1. Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shaivya Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 13.04.2018 and summoning order dated 30.11.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7957 of 2018 (State Vs. Satyam Singh @ Shivanshu Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2018, under Sections- 376, 493, 506, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Sector 24, NOIDA, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 1), Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the charge sheet had been submitted, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing, copy of the compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-12 of this application.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and has accepted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
5. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of one month from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
6. Put up this case on 25th January, 2021 in the additional cause list.
7. Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant."
5. The said compromise stood verified by the court below on 01.12.2020 and as per the office report and the communication of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 24.12.2020, the compromise stood verified. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though ordinarily, the proceedings with regard to the offences under Section 376 IPC are not compoundable. However, he submits that this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. /528 BNSS in a given circumstances, looking into the fact of the case, this can quash the said proceedings, particularly, when the parties themselves have compromised which has been verified by the Court also.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to rely upon the recent decision of the honorable Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No(S). - 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 7212 of 2025 (Madhukar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and another), wherein the Apex Court proceeded to quash the said proceedings in the wake of the settlement between the parties.
7. Learned AGA as well as counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submits that once there happens to be a compromise that too verified and in view of the judgment in Madhukar and Others (supra), proceedings can be quashed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
9. Apparently, a first information report stood lodged against the applicant by the opposite party No. 4 under Sections 376, 493, 506, 504 IPC which on investigation culminated into a charge-sheet under Sections 376, 493, 506, 504 IPC. Thereafter an interim order came to be passed and post passing of the order by this Court, the compromised stood verified.
10. In Madhukar and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.
7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step."
11. Looking into the peculiar facts, particularly, the parties have compromised and the same stood verified and they have taken their route as per their own wish and respectively following the judgment in the case of Madhukar and Others (supra), this court has no option to quash the said proceedings.
12. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
13. The proceedings of the charge sheet dated 13.04.2018, summoning order dated 30.11.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No.7957 of 2018(State vs. Satyam Singh@Shivanshu Singh) arising out of case crime no.37 of 2018 under Sections 376, 493, 506, 504 IPC, Police Station-Sector 24, NOIDA pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Gautam Budh Nagar, is quashed insofar as it relates to the applicants.
Order Date :- 28.7.2025 A. Prajapati