High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 27.08.2016 along with Cognizance order dated 05.11.2016 and the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.746 of 2016 (State vs. Brajkishor), arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Samthar, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Jhansi on the basis of compromise.

3. Earlier on 21.03.2025, the following order was passed:- "Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has filed vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit in the Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 27.08.2016 along with Cognizance order dated 05.11.2016 and the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.746 of 2016 (State vs. Brajkishor), arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Samthar, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Jhansi, on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed under chained circumstances. He further contends that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In this regard, a compromise affidavit of both the parties has been annexed as Annexure No.7 of this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicant would futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court and will be abuse of process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. Put up this case on 24th April, 2025, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari as learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Jhansi shall also verify and send a report to this Court as to whether the opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, same has been returned or not. Learned A.G.A. as well as Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into compliance of this order. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. "

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, report regarding verification of compromise deed as well as compensation has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 23.04.2025. From the report of I/c Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi, dated 22.04.2025, compromise has been verified by order dated 22.04.2025 in the presence of parties alongwith their respective counsels, however, as compensation amount was not returned, therefore, on 24.04.2025, the following order was passed:- "Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. In compliance of the earlier order dated 21.03.2025, the compromise verification report as well as the report regarding compensation is kept on record as is evident from the office report dated 23.04.2025. The report regarding compensation has been placed by District Magistrate, Jhansi, mentioning therein that the victim was given Rs.75,000/-, which has not been returned by her. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Jhansi, is directed to recover the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- from the victim (opposite party no.2), in accordance with law, by the next date fixed. Put up this case on 12.05.2025, as fresh, for further hearing. Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing."

5. In compliance of aforesaid order, a report from the District Magistrate, Jhansi is kept on record as is evident from the office report dated 09.05.2025. The letter of District Magistrate, Jhansi alongwith signature of District Social Welfare Officer, Jhansi dated 09.05.2025 mentions that the compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- has been returned by the victim on 22.04.2025. Photocopy of challan dated 22.04.2025 has been passed on to the Court today by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, showing the deposit of Rs.75,000/-, is kept on record.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

8. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, 2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, 3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, 5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

9. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

11. Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 27.08.2016 along with Cognizance order dated 05.11.2016 and the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.746 of 2016 (State vs. Brajkishor), arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Samthar, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Jhansi is hereby quashed.

12. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Jitendra/- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 27.08.2016 along with Cognizance order dated 05.11.2016 and the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.746 of 2016 (State vs. Brajkishor), arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Samthar, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Jhansi on the basis of compromise.

3. Earlier on 21.03.2025, the following order was passed:- "Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has filed vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit in the Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 27.08.2016 along with Cognizance order dated 05.11.2016 and the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.746 of 2016 (State vs. Brajkishor), arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Samthar, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Jhansi, on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed under chained circumstances. He further contends that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In this regard, a compromise affidavit of both the parties has been annexed as Annexure No.7 of this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicant would futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court and will be abuse of process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. Put up this case on 24th April, 2025, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari as learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Jhansi shall also verify and send a report to this Court as to whether the opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, same has been returned or not. Learned A.G.A. as well as Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into compliance of this order. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. "

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, report regarding verification of compromise deed as well as compensation has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 23.04.2025. From the report of I/c Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi, dated 22.04.2025, compromise has been verified by order dated 22.04.2025 in the presence of parties alongwith their respective counsels, however, as compensation amount was not returned, therefore, on 24.04.2025, the following order was passed:- "Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. In compliance of the earlier order dated 21.03.2025, the compromise verification report as well as the report regarding compensation is kept on record as is evident from the office report dated 23.04.2025. The report regarding compensation has been placed by District Magistrate, Jhansi, mentioning therein that the victim was given Rs.75,000/-, which has not been returned by her. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Jhansi, is directed to recover the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- from the victim (opposite party no.2), in accordance with law, by the next date fixed. Put up this case on 12.05.2025, as fresh, for further hearing. Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing."

5. In compliance of aforesaid order, a report from the District Magistrate, Jhansi is kept on record as is evident from the office report dated 09.05.2025. The letter of District Magistrate, Jhansi alongwith signature of District Social Welfare Officer, Jhansi dated 09.05.2025 mentions that the compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- has been returned by the victim on 22.04.2025. Photocopy of challan dated 22.04.2025 has been passed on to the Court today by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, showing the deposit of Rs.75,000/-, is kept on record.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

8. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, 2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, 3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, 5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

9. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

11. Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 27.08.2016 along with Cognizance order dated 05.11.2016 and the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.746 of 2016 (State vs. Brajkishor), arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Samthar, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Jhansi is hereby quashed.

12. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Jitendra/- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad