Brajendra Tiwari And Another v. State of U.P. and

2. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

3. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. The instant application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No.614 of 2020, (State Vs. Brajendra Tiwari and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.296 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354-A I.P.C. and Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mauranipur, District-Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jhansi, on the basis of compromise.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicants have approached this Court by means of moving an application u/s 528 BNSS No.5686 of 2025 (Brajendra Tiwari And Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Othersr), wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Court below for verification of the compromise. He further submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise between the parties has been verified vide order dated 25.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jhansi. Certified copy of the verification order has been placed at page-108-B.

6. As the compensation was not returned, therefore, on 01.05.2025 the following order was passed:- "By order dated 03.03.2025, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the parties to appear before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise between the parties. In compliance of the aforesaid, compromise has been verified, however, nothing has been mentioned as to whether the compensation as received by opposite party no.2 has been returned or not. As prayed, two weeks' time is granted to learned A.G.A. for the State to serve notice upon the opposite party no.2/informant in terms of the provisions contained in Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and file compliance affidavit in this regard. The District Magistrate, Jhansi shall verify and send a report to this Court as to whether the opposite party no.2/informant has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, the same has been returned or not. Put up this case, as fresh, on 16.05.2025 along with aforesaid report. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case Crime no.296 of 2020 (State Vs. Brajendra Tiwari and Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354A I.P.C. & Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(va) & 3(1) (dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Mauranipur, District- Jhansi."

7. In compliance of aforesaid order, the compensation report is kept on record as is evident from office report dated 15.05.2025. The letter of District Magistrate, Jhansi dated 15.05.2025 mentions about details where amount of Rs.75,000/- each given as compensation has already been returned.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

10. 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 Vs. 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,

11. 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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

12. 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.

13. Accordingly, proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No.614 of 2020, (State Vs. Brajendra Tiwari and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.296 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354-A I.P.C. and Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mauranipur, District-Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jhansi, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.

14. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Rahul. RAHUL GOSWAMI RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

3. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. The instant application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No.614 of 2020, (State Vs. Brajendra Tiwari and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.296 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354-A I.P.C. and Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mauranipur, District-Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jhansi, on the basis of compromise.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicants have approached this Court by means of moving an application u/s 528 BNSS No.5686 of 2025 (Brajendra Tiwari And Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Othersr), wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Court below for verification of the compromise. He further submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise between the parties has been verified vide order dated 25.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jhansi. Certified copy of the verification order has been placed at page-108-B.

6. As the compensation was not returned, therefore, on 01.05.2025 the following order was passed:- "By order dated 03.03.2025, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the parties to appear before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise between the parties. In compliance of the aforesaid, compromise has been verified, however, nothing has been mentioned as to whether the compensation as received by opposite party no.2 has been returned or not. As prayed, two weeks' time is granted to learned A.G.A. for the State to serve notice upon the opposite party no.2/informant in terms of the provisions contained in Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and file compliance affidavit in this regard. The District Magistrate, Jhansi shall verify and send a report to this Court as to whether the opposite party no.2/informant has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, the same has been returned or not. Put up this case, as fresh, on 16.05.2025 along with aforesaid report. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case Crime no.296 of 2020 (State Vs. Brajendra Tiwari and Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354A I.P.C. & Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(va) & 3(1) (dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Mauranipur, District- Jhansi."

7. In compliance of aforesaid order, the compensation report is kept on record as is evident from office report dated 15.05.2025. The letter of District Magistrate, Jhansi dated 15.05.2025 mentions about details where amount of Rs.75,000/- each given as compensation has already been returned.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

10. 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 Vs. 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,

11. 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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

12. 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.

13. Accordingly, proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No.614 of 2020, (State Vs. Brajendra Tiwari and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.296 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354-A I.P.C. and Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mauranipur, District-Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jhansi, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.

14. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Rahul. RAHUL GOSWAMI RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad