Allahabad High Court
Paras Agrawal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 March, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31570 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7122 of 2025 Applicant :- Paras Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Jaiswal,Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Mohit Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant-Paras Agrawal, who is a charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present Criminal Misc. Application (Under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No.90/2019 (State vs. Paras Agrawal) pending before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Rape Cases & POCSO Act), Sambhal at Chandausi arising out of Case Crime No.114/2018, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Baniyather, District Bheem Nagar (now Sambhal) and also to quash the impugned charge sheet No. 167/2018 dated 06.09.2018 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 10.12.2018 passed by CJM. Sambhal at Chandausi in the aforesaid case.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of S.T. No.90/2019 (State vs. Paras Agrawal) pending before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Rape Cases & POCSO Act), Sambhal at Chandausi arising out of Case Crime No.114/2018, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Baniyather, District Bheem Nagar during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court and/or may pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant would suffer an irreparable loss and injury."
4. Record shows that applicant initially approached this Court by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21292 of 2019 ( Paras Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and another). Aforesaid application came up for admission on 28.02.2019 and this court passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 06.09.2018, cognizance order dated 10.12.2018 as well as entire proceedings of S.T No.90 of 2019, State Vs. Paras Agrawal, arising out of case crime no.114 of 2018, under Sections 376 IPC, Police Station-Baniyather, District-Bheem Nagar pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal/Bheem Nagar at Chandausi.
The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the present FIR was registered by none other than the victim itself against the only named accused/applicant. She, in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement as well as in the FIR, in no uncertain terms accepts and admits that she is in tender relationship with the applicant for the last three years. As per High School Certificate, her age comes around 20 years, 11 months and 27 days and despite of the fact that she is major and understands the far reaching repercussions of crossing limits of relationship, despite of this she has crossed the limits, on the pretext that the applicant would marry with her and now he has wriggled out from his promise. It is next submitted that crossing of the limit is with the consent of both the parties and as per the definition of Section 90 of IPC, it cannot be said to be under some coercion, threat or misconception. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR (2019) SC 327 to buttress his condition. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter requires consideration.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A, who prays for and is allowed six weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2, who may also file counter affidavit within the same period.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing, charge sheet dated 06.09.2018, cognizance order dated 10.12.2018 as well as entire proceedings of S.T No.90 of 2019, State Vs. Paras Agrawal, arising out of case crime no.114 of 2018, under Sections 376 IPC, Police Station-Baniyather, District-Bheem Nagar pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal/Bheem Nagar at Chandausi 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.
Order Date :- 28.5.2019 "
5. Ultimately aforesaid application was disposed of finally by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025. For ready reference the order dated 07.01.2025 is reproduced herein under:
"1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Munesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Ms. Ruchi Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 06.09.2018, cognizance order dated 10.12.2018 as well as entire proceedings of S.T No.90 of 2019, State Vs. Paras Agrawal, arising out of case crime no.114 of 2018, under Sections 376 IPC, Police Station-Baniyather, District-Bheem Nagar, pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal/Bheem Nagar at Chandausi.
3. From the perusal of record, it appears that on 28.05.2019, this matter was heard on admission and on that date, the Court considering the fact that there was consensual relationship between the applicant and opposite party no. 2 subsequently on refusing to marry on the part of the applicant, opposite party no. 2 had lodged the F.I.R. Interim order was also granted in favour of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that now the parties have settled their dispute amicably. In her counter affidavit, it is stated by the opposite party no. 2 that she was having love affair with the applicant subsequently on refusing the applicant to marry with her, she lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant. It is also mentioned that in paragraph 10 of the affidavit, though the engagement of applicant and opposite party no. 2 was fixed but subsequently their wedding was postponed due to some family issue thereafter opposite party no. 2 lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant.
5. It is jointly submitted by both the parties that both the parties have settled their dispute and opposite party no. 2 does not want to pursue the impugned proceedings against the applicant.
6. From the perusal of the F.I.R., which was lodged by the opposite party no. 2, it is clear that it is a case of consensual sexual relationship as subsequently on backing out on the part of the applicant to marry with opposite party no. 2, F.I.R was lodged. From the statements recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that it was a case of consensual relationship during love affair and subsequently applicant had refused to marry with opposite party no. 2 then impugned proceedings was initiated.
7. As both the parties have settled their dispute amicably dispute, the present application is disposed of with direction to the parties to file original deed of compromise before the court below within a period of 15 days and on filing such compromise the court below will verify the same within a period of next two months and for a period of two and half months, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.
8. The applicants are granted liberty to file a fresh application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the main proceedings on the basis of verified compromise "
6. Pursuant to above order dated 07.01.2025, parties filed a compromise application before court below. The certified copy of the compromise filed before court below has been brought on record and is at page 71 of the paper book. Subsequently, in compliance of above order dated 07.01.2025, court below verified the compromise entered into by the parties vide order dated 23.01.2025, which is on record at page 74 of the paper book. Thereafter, court below passed an another order dated 24.01.2025 whereby compromise entered into by the parties was re-verified.
7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that since parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused/applicant is not only remote but also bleak. He therefore contends that since the compromise entered into by the parties has been acted upon and verified by court below, therefore, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. submits that impugned proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise entered into by the parties as the same relate to an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. also. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR OnLine 2019 SC 1716, it is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that Apex Court has itself prohibited the termination of proceedings on the basis of compromise entered into by the parties in matters relating to rape and sexual assault. As such, no benefit can be derived by applicant from the compromise so entered into by the parties. He therefore, contends that present application is liable to be dismissed.
9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. He, however, submitted that irrespective of the judgment of Supreme Court in Rampal (Supra), yet the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. To lend legal support to his aforesaid submissions, he has referred to the judgment of Delhi High Court in Amar Kumar and Another Vs. The State of (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8452. In aforementioned case, the Court quashed the proceedings under Section 376/506/34 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act but on the ground that the accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and the couple was blessed with a child. It is on account of aforementioned peculiar fact that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the Delhi High Court. It may be mentioned here that the view taken by the Delhi High Court is in confirmity with the view already taken by the Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056 and Mafat Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589.
10. Reference was also made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 292, wherein the Apex Court quashed the proceedings of a complaint case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 325, 323 IPC. The aforesaid conclusion was drawn by the Apex Court on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise. It is by now well settled that compromise can be entered into by the parties even in respect of cognizable and non compoundable offences but subject to the limitations imposed by the Apex Court itself in the subsequent judgments i.e. (i) Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, (ii) State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688, (iii) Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716, (iv) Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834, (v) Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936 and (vi). State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021. As such, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant are distinguishable on facts and therefore, not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record this court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not only borne out from the record but furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.
102. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
13. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.3.2025 YK