[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Pawan Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 8 April, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(S) (CRL.) NO(S).2957/2025)
PAWAN KUMAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R / J U D G M E N T
Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein had preferred an application
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short, “Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashing of the entire
proceedings as well as charge sheet No.31 of 2023 and
cognizance order dated 29.03.2023 in Case No.3398 of 2023
(State vs. Pawan Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.0260
of 2022 under Sections 354-C, 376, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and Sections 67-A and
66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”
for short) registered in Police Station Hathras Junction,
District Hathras and it was pending in the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. The High Court by its
order dated 01.10.2024 dismissed the said application.
However, in paragraph 6 the High Court has recorded as
under:
Signature Not Verified “6. After hearing the learned counsel for the
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.05.01 parties and perused the records, it is evident
13:43:43 IST
Reason:
that the applicant is an accused in the present
Page 1
case in which a first information report was
lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 04.09.2022.
The matter was investigated and a charge sheet
dated 25.02.2023 was submitted against the
applicant for offences under Sections 354-C,
376, 506 IPC & 67-A, 66-C Information Technology
Act on which the court concerned took cognizance
and summoned him vide order dated 29.03.2023.
Subsequently it appears that the parties entered
into a compromise. An application along with
affidavit of the opposite party No.2 dated
07.02.2024 was filed before the court concerned.
The said affidavit of the opposite party no.2
stating that she does not want to contest the
case further and wants to settle the same was
sent for verification by this Court vide order
dated 29.07.2024. The said compromise was
verified vide order dated 27.08.2024 by the
Judicial Magistrate, Hathras and a report to the
said effect was sent to this court. The
proceedings in the present matter relates to
offence which are non-compoundable. The judgment
relied by learned counsel for the applicant in
the case of Kapil Gupta (supra) is of no help to
him since the Apex Court has in paragraph 17 of
the same clarified that it has exercised its
extraordinary powers to quash the criminal
proceedings. Although compromise entered between
the parties has been verified by the court
concerned but the proceedings in the present
matter are under Sections 354-C, 376, 506 IPC &
67-A, 66-C Information Technology Act which
cannot be compounded in view of the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of In RE: Right to
Page 2
Privacy of Adolescents (Suo Motu Writ Petition
(C) No.3 of 2023) decided on 20.08.2024
paragraph 22, 23 & 23.1. No ground is made out.”
3. It is in the above backdrop that the appellant has
preferred this appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant,
learned counsel for the first respondent-State and
learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant and
perused the material on record.
5. During the course of submissions learned counsel
for the appellant as well as the second respondent drew
our attention to the settlement agreement, the agreement
letter/affidavit of the second respondent and the order
of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, all dated
27.08.2024. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew
our attention to two orders of this Court arising in
Crl.A.NO.4928 of 2024 (Nitin Bhargav vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and another) and judgment in Crl.A.NO.2343
of 2023 (Haji Iqbal @ Bala thorugh SPOA vs. State of UP
and others). In the circumstances, the learned counsel
for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the
second respondent submitted that taking note of the
aforesaid material on record, this court may exercise its
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and
quash the complaint and the subsequent proceedings
Page 3
arising out of the complaint against the appellant
herein. In other words, there is a consensus between the
appellant as well as the second respondent for quashing
of the aforesaid complaint and all proceedings arising
from the said complaint.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
State submitted that having regard to the material on
record and the submissions made by the respective
parties, appropriate orders may be made.
8. We have considered the submissions advanced at the
bar in light of what has been expressed by the High Court
in paragraph 6 of the impugned order extracted above.
9. The terms of the Settlement letter dated 27.08.2024
reads as under:
“1. That the above case has been registered by
the complainant/first party against the
accused/second party.
2. That the plaintiff/first party had given a
written complaint in the police station Hathras
Junction due to misunderstanding on the basis of
which the above case was registered which is
pending in the court of Hon’ble Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Hathras.
3. That the complainant/first party has not made
an obscene video or done any wrong act like rape
due to misunderstanding and neither has be abused
or threatened to kill.
4. That the statement recorded in the Hon’ble
Court by the complainant/first party under
Page 4
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded under
police pressure, there is no such allegation
against the second party.
5. That the mobile no.8439393552 belongs to the
complainant/first party.
6. That in relation to the above, I had earlier
submitted an affidavit to this effect in the
Hob’ble Court voluntarily without any pressure
and I stand by it even today.
7. That both of us do not have any animosity or
ill will towards each other now and neither do we
have any interest in continuing the said case.
8. That the present settlement is being re-
presented before this Hon’ble Court as per the
order dated 29.07.2024 passed in Pawan Kumar vs
State of UP by the Honb’ble High Court, Allahabad
in the Application No.13497/24 under Section 482
Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the accused/second
party. So that the Hon’ble Court can verify the
settlement and accordingly inform the Hon’ble
High Court Allahabad.
9. That both of us do not want to pursue the
matter further.
10. That on the basis of the settlement between
both the parties, please pass an order in the
interest of justice to decide the said case at
this stage.”
10. The agreement letter/affidavit dated 27.08.2024
reads as under:
“1. That the deponent is a permanent resident of
the above mentioned name and address.
2. That the deponent, by mistake and in
misunderstanding, had lodged a case against Pawan
Page 5
Kumar son of Sukhram resident of village Nagla
Gularia, Police Station Hajj, District-Hathras,
under Sections 67A, 66 C.I.Tact and 376, 504, 506
IPC, Police Station Hajj, District-Hathras.
3. That the abvoe Pawan Kumar of the deponent
neither made any obscene video nor did he do any
wrong thing with me nor threatened to kill me.
4. That Pawan Kumar works in the army.
5. That the mobile number of the deponent
8439393552 is in the name of the deponent.
6. That the above Pawan Kumar has not raped me. I
had given the statement of Section 161 CrPC and
Section 164 crPC under pressure from the police.
7. That I, the deponent, am making the true
statement known through the affidavit.”
11. The order of the Judicial Magistrate, Hathras dated
27.08.2024 reads as under:
“Today on 27.098.2024, both the parties
along with their learned advocates appeared. The
agreement letter/settlement presented by them
dated 29.07.2024 is filed. The photo and
signature of the complainant Parvati Devi alias
Payal Chaudhary were identified by her learned
advocate Mr. Amod Kumar and the photo and
signature of the accused Pawan Kumar were
identified by his learned advocate Mr.
V.K.Sisodia.
The order of the Hon’ble High Court dated
29.07.2024 is filed on the file in which it has
been directed by the Hon’ble High Court that both
the parties should appear before this court with
order and the Court should verify the said
agreement letter/settlement letter and send its
Page 6
report in this regard within two weeks.
In compliance with the order of the
Hon’ble High Court, both the parties have
appeared before this court and the agreement
letter/settlement letter dated 29.07.2024 was
verified by them in open court with the free
consent of both the parties. The report should be
sent along with the verified copy of the
agreement letter/settlement letter in compliance
with the order of the Hon’ble High Court. Advance
order for the file should be presented on the
next date.”
12. We have perused the judgments relied upon by
learned counsel for the appellant. The relevant portions
of which reads as under:
{Crl.A.NO.4928 of 2024 (Nitin Bhargav vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh and another) and judgment in
Crl.A.NO.2343 of 2023 (Haji Iqbal @ Bala thorugh SPOA vs.
State of UP and others)} (RELEVANT PORTIONS ...)
13. On perusal of the judgment of this court in Hazi
Iqbal it is noted that there were no offences alleged
against the accused therein under Section 376D of IPC. In
the same way, we note that in the instant case, there
were no allegations alleged in respect of Section 376 IPC
as against the appellant herein. It was in the FIR and it
was only later that the second respondent has stated that
the said allegation was made under police pressure by
giving her statement under Section 164 of CrPC.
Page 7
14. In the circumstances, we find that the allegation
under Section 376 IPC was virtually false as the said
allegation could not find place in the first instance in
the FIR.
15. In the circumstances, we find that having regard to
the settlement arrived at between the parties as recorded
above and bearing in mind what has been expressed by the
High Court, this is a fit case, where we ought to
exercise and we exercise jurisdiction under Article 142
of the Constitution of India and quash the complaint in
Case Crime No.0260 of 2022 filed by the second respondent
as against the appellant herein and consequently all
proceedings arising out of the said complaint.
16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
………………………………………………………, J
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………………………, J
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI
APRIL 8, 2025
Page 8
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.6 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S).2957/2025
[ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01-10-
2024 IN AN NO. 13497/2024 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT ALLAHABAD]
PAWAN KUMAR PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
Date : 08-04-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Adv.
Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ritik Rana, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abdul Qadir Abbasi, AOR
For Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR
Mr. Sharanya Sinh, Adv.
Mr. Ghanshyam Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shriya Maini, AOR
Mr. Rajive Maini, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
Page 9
[ad_2]
Source link