Hariram Modanwal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43112

Court No. - 15

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8279 of 2024

Applicant :- Hariram Modanwal And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Avinash Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar,Arun Kumar Singh Parihar

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Hans Raj Verma, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Arun Kumar Singh Parihar, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

¶8

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 28.08.2022, the summoning order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Ld. Spl. Judge POCSO Act, Pratapgarh as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1222 of 2023 arising out of the Case Crime No.88 of 2022 under Sections 147/148/323/354/354-B, 427/504/506 IPC & Section 9-G/10 of POCSO Act at Police Station- Mandhata, District- Pratapgarh.

¶9

The aforesaid cases has been instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No.2 on 30.03.2022 stating that the applicants tried to grab a piece of land of the informant and in this process, they abused and beaten up the informant and her daughters.

¶10

Although, initially the FIR was lodged under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, during investigation, Sections 147, 148, 354, 354-B, 427 IPC and Section 9-G/10 of POCSO Act were added.

¶11

The allegation of commission of any sexual offence could not be established by the medico-legal examination report of the victim.

¶12

During pendency of the petition, the parties have entered into a settlement on 16.09.2023 stating that they have resolved their

¶13

disputes and have restored their amicable relations. Cases have been instituted from both the sides against each other and they stated that they do not want any proceedings to continue against each other.

¶14

The case instituted against the opposite party No.2 has been quashed on the basis of a compromise in the order passed by this Court today itself i.e. on 25.07.2025 in Application u/S 482 No.2336 of 2025.

¶15

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 aforesaid judgments:

¶16

"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

¶17

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."

¶18

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 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.

¶19

Although the charge-sheet in the present case involves commission of offence under POCSO Act, this allegation was not there in the FIR and this allegation has not been supported by the findings of medico-legal examination report. In Madhukar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., SLP (Crl.) No.7212 of 2025 decided on 14.07.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings including the allegation of commission of offences under Section 376, on the basis of compromise.

¶20

Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the charge-sheet dated 28.08.2022, the summoning order dated

¶21

19.07.2023 passed by the Ld. Spl. Judge POCSO Act, Pratapgarh as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1222 of 2023 arising out of the Case Crime No.88 of 2022 under Sections 147/148/323/354/354-B, 427/504/506 IPC & Sections 9-G/10 of POCSO Act at Police Station- Mandhata, District- Pratapgarh are quashed.

¶22

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 25.7.2025 -Amit K-

¶24

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

Hariram Modanwal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariram Modanwal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 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

Umesh Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. through Principal, Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat U.P. Lucknow and Another

Mohd. Shuaib and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gulab Chand Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dr. K.N. Srivastavadr. Kamlesh Narain Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its.Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Rama Shanker Pathak @ Rama Shanker and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Syed Raza Abbas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another