[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
Aman Malik vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 10 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
2025:UHC:4727
Judgment Reserved on:13.05.2025
Judgment Delivered on: 10.06.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
C528 No.263 of 2025
Aman Malik ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ..... Respondents
Present:-
Ms. Sadaf Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Ms. Reema Rana, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
This criminal misc. application is filed by the
petitioner/accused under Section 528 of Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, B.N.S.S.) for
quashing of charge-sheet dated 01.04.2024,
cognizance/summoning order dated 02.04.2024 and the
entire proceedings of Session Trial No.47 of 2024 “State
vs. Aman Malik @ Naved Ali” for the offences punishable
under Sections 328, 376, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1) &
5(1) of Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, P.S.
Mukhani, District Nainital pending in the court of
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District
Nainital, on the basis of compromise arrived at between
the parties.
2. Before proceeding to consider the merits of the
compounding application, this Court deems it
appropriate to set out the brief facts of the case, which
are as follows:-
1
2025:UHC:4727
Criminal proceedings were initiated on the
basis of an FIR No.25/2024 lodged by respondent
no.2/complainant at P.S. Mukhani, District Nainital. As
per the allegations made in the FIR, petitioner/accused
befriended the respondent no.2/complainant by
introducing himself as Aman, thereby concealing his true
identity as a Muslim; that, thereafter, petitioner/accused
invited respondent no.2/complainant at his residence on
the occasion of Janmashtami celebration in his house
and taking advantage of the fact that she was observing a
fast on the occasion of Janmashtami, petitioner/accused
gave her milk laced with some sedative; that, when she
came under the influence of the sedative,
petitioner/accused raped her and took her nude
photographs; that, when she regained her senses
petitioner/accused showed her nude photographs and
videos and threatened her to make her nude photographs
and videos viral and to remain in relationship with him;
that, due to fear of defamation, respondent
no.2/complainant initially succumbed to the threats of
petitioner/accused, however, subsequently, a woman
named Sonam Khan contacted the respondent
no.2/complainant and informed her that
petitioner/accused is her husband and advised her to
stay away from him; that, on this respondent
no.2/complainant questioned Sonam Khan, pointing out
that she (Sonam Khan) is a Muslim and then how she
could be in a relationship with the petitioner/accused,
who had introduced himself to the respondent
no.2/complainant as a Hindu; that, Sonam Khan then
clarified to the respondent no.2/complainant that the
petitioner/accused is, in fact, not a Hindu but a Muslim.
2
2025:UHC:4727
After completion of investigation, Charge-sheet
was filed on 01.04.2024 whereupon cognizance was
taken and summoning order dated 02.04.2024 was
issued to the petitioner/accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
would submit that from the very inception of their
acquaintance, respondent no.2/complainant was fully
aware that the petitioner/accused belonged to the
Muslim community and he never concealed his real
identity. It is further submitted that both the parties
reside in the same vicinity and the respondent
no.2/complainant used to frequently visit the petitioner’s
residence.
4. She would further submit that respondent
no.2/complainant has reconciled with the
petitioner/accused and both parties have amicably
resolved their differences; that, compromise has been
arrived at between them and now the respondent
no.2/complainant no longer wishes to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused. She
would submit that an affidavit has been filed by
respondent no.2/complainant wherein at paragraph no.6
she has specifically affirmed that she was well
acquainted with the petitioner/accused and that from the
very beginning of their friendship she was well aware that
he is a Muslim and that the FIR was lodged due to a
misunderstanding between them.
5. Learned counsel would further submit that in
view of the amicable settlement between the
3
2025:UHC:4727
petitioner/accused and respondent no.2/complainant,
proceedings of criminal case should be quashed as
continuation of trial would be futile and sheer wastage of
precious judicial time.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel would
vehemently oppose the compounding application as well
as the present petition filed under Section 528 of the
B.N.S.S. and would submit that the allegations made in
the FIR are of a very serious nature and fall within the
category of heinous offences which should not be treated
merely as offences against an individual but must be
viewed as offences against society at large. Therefore,
allowing such cases to be quashed on the basis of
compromise would set a dangerous precedent and defeat
the ends of justice.
7. He would further submit that the statement of
respondent no.2/complainant has been recorded as in
the trial court (Annexure no.5 to the counter affidavit) and
in her examination-in-chief PW1/prosecutrix has fully
supported the prosecution’s case. She has reiterated her
allegations in all material particulars, consistent with the
statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C.
He would further submit that in the statement
recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix had levelled
serious allegations against other accused persons also
against whom investigation is underway.
8. Learned State Counsel would cite a judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in re “Daxaben v. State of
Gujarat & Ors. (2022) 16 SCC 117″, wherein it has
4
2025:UHC:4727
been categorically held that in heinous offences,
particularly those which shock the conscience of the
society, criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed
merely on the basis of a compromise between the
accused and the complainant.
9. Considered the submissions of learned counsel
for the parties and perused the entire material available
on file.
10. It is an established principle of criminal
jurisprudence, reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in “State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan
(2019) 5 SCC 688″ and “Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
(2012) 10 SCC 303” that while the High Court possesses
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section
528 of B.N.S.S.) to quash criminal proceedings in the
interest of justice, such power must be exercised with
caution and should not be invoked in cases involving
heinous and serious offences, particularly offences
against dignity of women such as rape.
11. In order to apply the ratio laid down in the
above judgments in the light of facts and circumstances
of the present case, it is necessary to go through the
statements of prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. as
well as the testimony given by her in the trial Court.
12. In her statement recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate, the prosecutrix stated that
“…petitioner/accused met her in September-October and
asked her to enter into relationship with him; that, she
5
2025:UHC:4727
entered into relationship with him; that, initially
petitioner/accused did not tell her his full name, he only
told Aman. On the night of Janamastmi,
petitioner/accused said that they are gathering at his
house for a night out and that she should also come. She
went to his house where petitioner/accused was alone.
She asked about other friends. He said they must be
coming. Petitioner/accused brought milk for her because
she was fasting that day. As soon as she drank the milk
she started feeling dizzy, then his friends came. She was
feeling dizzy, so she told his friends to go out. They were
smoking so when she started going out,
petitioner/accused stopped her and asked her to sleep
there. She fell asleep. When she woke up in the morning
petitioner/accused showed her photos and videos on his
phone and said that the four of us have done this with her.
In the video, all four of them were getting physical with
her. She stated that all of them raped her. She told
petitioner/accused that he cannot do this to her and when
she started leaving from there, he slapped her and said
that if you leave him, he will show these photos and
videos to everyone in the house and will make them viral.
After that, out of fear, she continued in a relationship with
Aman….”
13. In her testimony recorded in the trial court, the
prosecutrix deposed that “… In August 2023, she met
petitioner/accused through common friends. In
September, 2023, on the day of Janamastmi
petitioner/accused called her and invited her for a party
and told that his other friends will also come. On the night
of Janmashtami, prosecutrix went to the house of
6
2025:UHC:4727
petitioner/accused but his friends were not there. On
being asked, petitioner/accused told her that other friends
must be coming. She had kept fast. Petitioner/accused
brought milk for her. She drank that milk and became
unconscious. Perhaps milk was laced with some sedative.
Next day when she regained her senses,
petitioner/accused showed her nude photographs on his
mobile and threatened her to be in relationship with him
and that otherwise he would viral the pictures. Due to
threat and defamation, she started going to his room
where he forcibly raped her several times after giving her
sedatives.
That, a girl named Sonam called the prosecutrix and told
that petitioner/accused is her boyfriend. Prosecutrix
asked her that she is Muslim then how petitioner/accused
can be her boyfriend on which Sonam told the prosecutrix
that petitioner/accused is a Muslim. She got shocked to
hear this because petitioner/accused had told her that he
is a Hindu and his mother’s name is Usha Devi and his
father has died; that, when she went to
petitioner/accused’s to clarify the things, he forcibly made
her wear a burkha and told his name as Naved Ali and
said that soon he will marry her and make her Muslim
and that if she do not agree then he will post her nude
photos and videos on social platform and will kill her
family. She was raped by the petitioner/accused and he
tried to convert her religion….”
14. Having gone through the above statements,
this Court is of the considered view that respondent
no.2/complainant has made clear, detailed and serious
allegations of rape, blackmailing, and religious
7
2025:UHC:4727
misrepresentation. Moreover, the allegations also include
gang rape, as evident from her statement Section 164
Cr.P.C. statement, which remains uncontroverted at this
stage of proceedings. However, it has been informed that
investigation is pending against co-accused persons.
15. On 22.04.2025, this Court after having noted
serious objection of the State Counsel to the
Compounding Application had directed the S.S.P.,
Nainital to look into all aspects and provide protection to
all the witnesses from any kind of threat, coercion or
influence and to submit compliance report. Pursuant to
said order, S.S.P. Nainital has filed his report thereby
enclosing the applications of witnesses including the
prosecutrix which indicates that the prosecutrix and
other witnesses have refused to receive any kind of police
protection and that they have no threat from the side of
accused.
16. Although the prosecutrix has stated that she
entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily
and has not sought police protection but the possibility of
coercion, intimidation, or undue influence cannot be
ruled out, particularly when she has given statement on
oath before the trial court accusing the petitioner. A
compromise executed after such testimony raises serious
doubts about its genuineness and undermines its legal
sanctity. The compromise appears to have been entered
into only after the prosecutrix had already deposed under
oath, confirming the commission of a grave offence under
Section 376 IPC. Moreover, the offence punishable under
Section 376 IPC is non-compoundable and cannot be
8
2025:UHC:4727
quashed merely on the basis of a settlement or
compromise between the victim and the accused,
especially where the facts reveal conduct that shocks the
conscience of the Court and the society at large.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion and having
regard to the gravity and seriousness of allegations, the
stage of the trial, and the consistent and credible
statements of the prosecutrix, this Court is of the firm
opinion that the Compounding Application as well as the
present petition is wholly misconceived and devoid of
merit. Accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed. The
Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter and
conclude the trial on its merits, after thoroughly
examining all aspects of the case.
18. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial
court for information.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
10.06.2025
Rajni
RAJINI
Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3701a9a
e475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342,
GUSAIN
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4FC80D45
57562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A878BD8,
cn=RAJINI GUSAIN
Date: 2025.06.09 23:51:27 -07’00’
9
[ad_2]
Source link