Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4357 of 2021
Applicant :- Anwar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Sri Amit Rana, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. This application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2017 arising out of Criminal Case No.631 of 2016, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor, on the ground that prosecutrix has entered into a compromise, which is part of this application as annexure no.6, drawn on a twenty rupees stamp paper bearing no.37AE743245 and 37AE743244, in which complainant has mentioned that she and the present applicant are real devar bhabhi.
3. Complainant had filed a case under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act and in that case, compromise has already been affected between the parties.
4. It is submitted that complainant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of learned CJM, Bijnor, which was registered as Misc. Case No.367 of 2015, alleging that on 27.05.2015 when complainant was standing at Nagina Chauraha, then Anwar had approached her on a motorcycle and asked her to give lift up to the village. She had travelled on the motorcycle where on way, Anwar had taken her behind a well and on a knife point, she was raped by the present applicant. It is also mentioned in the complaint that she had taken her Mama Mohammad Husain and visited Government Hospital Dhampur where her injuries were examined by the doctor and when she submitted an application to the S.P., Bijnor and when no action was taken, therefore, she was compelled to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On this application, court has taken cognizance and has summoned the accused-person. This order of summoning is dated 14.04.2016.
5. Quashing is sought after five years on the basis of one faisalanama, which is termed to be compromise allegedly executed on 29.01.2021, a date given under the signatures of notary public, whereas the fact of the matter is that neither any date nor place, where such agreement was executed, is mentioned on the stamp paper.
6. In the light of the law laid down in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303 and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466, a compromise allegedly arrived at between the parties after more than five years of the incident, especially in a case where application was filed separately under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of Case under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, cannot be accepted and after five years, a compromise has been effected that too in a matter of rape and criminal intimidation without mentioning the date and place when such compromise actually took place and merely it being notarized does not mean that, that date can be accepted to the date of the compromise.
7. Thirdly, it is not admissible in evidence as it is noted on an stamp which is inadequate. As per law laid down in case of Gian Singh (supra) Supreme Court has held that Court while exercising its inherent power to be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash criminal proceedings should examine social impact of crime in question vis-a-vis its individual impact, as decisive criterion for exercise of quashment power in such cases. It is held that in the matter of heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoitee etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Thus, in my opinion, there is no justification for quashing the proceedings as sought by the applicant.
8. Application fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Ravi/-