Prashant Kumar Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10094 of 2024

¶3

Prashant Kumar Pal

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Rajnish Kumar Pandey, Kumar Pandey	Santosh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):	Ashvni Mishra, G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 66

¶7

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶8

1. List revised.

¶9

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. Sri Ashvni Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is not present even when the matter is taken in the revised list.

¶10

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Prashant Kumar Pal, with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 12.07.2023 & cognizance order dated 28.10.2023 in SPL Case No. 419 of 2023 (State Vs. Prashant Kumar Pal) arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 506 I.P.C. & 5 L/6 POCSO Act & 3(2)(5), 3(2)5 Ka, 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, with a further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application.

¶11

It is the case of learned counsel for the applicant that although initially there was a dispute with regard to marriage between the applicant and the first informant / victim but later on the parties decided to enter into marital relationship and solemnized marriage

¶12

A482 No. 10094 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

which was reigstered before the Marriage Officer / Pargana Magistrate (Sadar) Bareilly and a certificate dated 01.09.2023 has been issued under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit. It is submitted that as such the dispute between the parties has been settled and the parties are now living happily as husband & wife. Learned counsel has submitted that under such circumstances the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Others in Criminal Appeal No. 001005 / 2025 vide order dated 28.02.2025 has quashed the first information report and the proceedings of the trial pending before the trial court concerned by means of the said order.

¶15

The office vide its report dated 01.09.2024 reported that a report from the Special Judge (POCSO Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly duly forwarded by the District Judge, Bareilly has been received, wherein it has been stated that compromise between the parties has been verified vide its report dated 06.05.2024.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of court and on the basis of compromise the applicants filed the present Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court in which an order for verification of the compromise was passed on 24.04.2024. It is argued that in compliance of the said order, the parties have filed the order of this Court along with compromise application before the concerned court for its verification after which the concerned court has verified the said compromise vide its order dated 06.05.2024. It is argued that the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the trial court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the applicants and therefore the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State could not dispute the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties which was duly verified by the concerned trial court.

¶18

The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex

¶19

A482 No. 10094 of 2024

¶20

3

¶21

Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

¶22

From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the entire proceedings of case as prayed for by the applicant.

¶23

The present application is allowed .

¶24

The entire proceedings of the said case are hereby quashed.

¶25

November 19, 2025 AS Rathore

¶26

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant Kumar Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Alias Appa vs State of U.P.

Khem Singh @ Kaalu vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Gautam vs State of U.P.

Mukesh vs State of U.P.

Sandeep vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mirza Galib @ Israr Ahmad vs State of U.P.