Sonu (in Charge Sheet Sonu Teli) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40829

Court No. - 15

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5743 of 2025

Applicant :- Sonu (In Charge Sheet Sonu Teli) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Harsh Pratap Singh, advocate, holding brief of Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyendra Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Aditya Verma, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 & 3. Counter affidavit filed by Sri Aditya Verma, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 & 3 is taken on record.

¶8

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 460/2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 359/2023, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi pending before learned Sessions Judge, Hardoi, as well as the charge sheet dated 04.09.2025, in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶9

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 03/07/2023 stating that the applicant had enticed away his daughter aged 14 years (opposite party No. 3) on 02/07/2023. The statement of opposite party No. 3 recorded under Section 161 CrPC, she had stated that she had gone with the applicant and stayed with him at Delhi for 5 days, however, in the statement of the opposite party

¶10

No. 3 recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she stated that her mother had beaten her up and for this reason, she had gone away from her home to the house off her bua at Lucknow and stayed there for 5 days. Her parents were not on talking terms for the past three years and therefore her bua did not tell her parents about it. She categorically stated that no misdeed was committed with her and that she does not know the accused or other persons. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 04/09/2023 and the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence by means of the order dated 16/02/2025.

¶11

4. Even before the Trial Court could frame charges in the case, the parties have entered into a compromise dated 28/06/2025 stating that the FIR was lodged being incited by some persons and the opposite party no. 2 and 3 do not want any proceedings to continue against the applicant.

¶12

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 and 3 wherein he has admitted the compromise and supported the plea for quashing of the proceedings.

¶13

6. In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another 2024 SCC OnLine All 4596 , this Court has examined the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 and has culled out the following principles from the

¶14

aforesaid judgments:

¶15

"27. ....... the inherent powers of the High Courts recognized by Section 482 Cr. P.C. are wide and can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings, but the power has to be exercised judiciously and consciously. The High Courts can exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law is clearly made out. Such powers ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind the nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society; the seriousness of the injury,if any, the voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim, the conduct of the accused persons and the other relevant considerations. Though the Courts should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there is sufficient evidence which may lead to proving the charges. The High Court can quash the proceedings even in cases where the parties have entered into a settlement after conviction for a heinous offence carrying a maximum punishment for life. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast rule restricting the powers of the High Court to do substantial justice, as a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may lead to grave injustice."

¶16

7. In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056 , an FIR under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was registered alleging that the appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, which amounted to committing rape. He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

¶17

of 10 years. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence. In appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the allegation against the appellant was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, whereas he had in fact married the prosecutrix and they had two children and they were being taken care of by the appellant and she was leading a happy married life. The prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. After taking into consideration these facts, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant in view of the subsequent events by observing that "This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix." However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also expressed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.

¶18

8. In view of the fact that the victim had not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise even before commencement of the trial and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 460/2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 359/2023, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi, are hereby quashed.

¶19

Order Date :- 16.7.2025 (Manoj K.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sonu (in Charge Sheet Sonu Teli) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu (in Charge Sheet Sonu Teli) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 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

Mukhtar Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Syed Rashid Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anoop Kumar @ Anoop Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sonu (in Charge Sheet Sonu Teli) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Sandeep Rawat @ Sandeep and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Naumi Lal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another