State of U.P. and Another vs Counsel for Appellant(s)

20.12.2022 in SST No. 259 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 2010, under Sections 323, 325, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted before this Court that the compromise entered into between the parties has been made without any coercion or undue influence upon the informant of this case and is a result of free will and consent of the parties.

6. It appears from perusal of the record that the present case is having a nature of purely private dispute and prima facie it also appears that the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim and except some offence under SC/ST Act, minor offences have been levelled against the accused. Further, the compromise between the parties is the result of free will and consent of the informant- opposite party no. 2 without any undue influence and this fact has not been disputed 2 CRLA No. 3724 of 2023 by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

7. Whether a compromise can be verified and accepted in a case relating to an offence under SC/ST Act has been answered in Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. (2022) 13 SCC

635. Paragraph no. 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- "17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."

9. It is further held in paragraph no. 19 of the said judgment which is quoted herein under:- "19. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case"

8. A perusal of the full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan And Others vs State Of U.P And Another 2022 (8) ADJ 691 reveals that a matter under the SC/ST Act may be compounded in a criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act and there is no need to take recourse of U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for the same.

9. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana and another, (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant s Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs State of Punjab, ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, Naushey Ali and others Vs State of UP and another, (Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2025 decided on 11.02.2025). In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of 3 CRLA No. 3724 of 2023 certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.

10. In view of the aforesaid legal position, and since the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the compromise has been duly verified, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

11. Hence, the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mirzapur as well as the entire proceedings of SST No. 259 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 2010, under Sections 323, 325, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur is hereby quashed in respect of present appellants.

12. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise entered into by both the parties. September 24, 2025 RavindraKSingh (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

20.12.2022 in SST No. 259 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 2010, under Sections 323, 325, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted before this Court that the compromise entered into between the parties has been made without any coercion or undue influence upon the informant of this case and is a result of free will and consent of the parties.

6. It appears from perusal of the record that the present case is having a nature of purely private dispute and prima facie it also appears that the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim and except some offence under SC/ST Act, minor offences have been levelled against the accused. Further, the compromise between the parties is the result of free will and consent of the informant- opposite party no. 2 without any undue influence and this fact has not been disputed 2 CRLA No. 3724 of 2023 by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

7. Whether a compromise can be verified and accepted in a case relating to an offence under SC/ST Act has been answered in Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. (2022) 13 SCC

635. Paragraph no. 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- "17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."

9. It is further held in paragraph no. 19 of the said judgment which is quoted herein under:- "19. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case"

8. A perusal of the full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan And Others vs State Of U.P And Another 2022 (8) ADJ 691 reveals that a matter under the SC/ST Act may be compounded in a criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act and there is no need to take recourse of U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for the same.

9. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana and another, (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant s Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs State of Punjab, ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, Naushey Ali and others Vs State of UP and another, (Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2025 decided on 11.02.2025). In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of 3 CRLA No. 3724 of 2023 certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.

10. In view of the aforesaid legal position, and since the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the compromise has been duly verified, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

11. Hence, the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mirzapur as well as the entire proceedings of SST No. 259 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 2010, under Sections 323, 325, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur is hereby quashed in respect of present appellants.

12. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise entered into by both the parties. September 24, 2025 RavindraKSingh (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad