High Court · 2025

1. Sri Adil Khan, learned Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3, which is taken on record. Office is directed to print his name as counsel for the opposite party.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 as well as learned A.G.A.

3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash the entire proceeding including charge sheet dated 02.07.2016 and cognizance order dated 21.01.2017 in Sessions Case No. 333 of 2018 (State Vs.Pankaj Baghel), arising out of Case Crime No. 222 of 2016 ,Under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under section 3(1) (X) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Etmadpur, District- Agra, pending before Special Judge SC/ST Act, Agra.

4. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and arrived at a compromise. Based on the said compromise, the present applicant, namely, Pankaj Bahgel, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court U/S 528 BNSS being Application No.5549 of 2025 (Pankaj Bahgel Vs.State Of U.P. And 2 Others). This court vide order dated 28.2.2025 (Annexure no.9) has disposed of the aforesaid application with a direction that the parties shall appear before the court below to get their compromise verified. It was left open for the applicant to take legal recourse subject to the facts and the outcome of the compromise application. For ready reference, order dated 28.02.2025 is quoted herein below :- "1. Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Shri Adil Khan (A/A 0119/2012), counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Shri Adil Khan (A/A 0119/2012), counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3

3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 333 of 2018 (State Vs. Pankaj Baghel), arising out of case crime no.222 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Etmadpur, District Agra pending before the court of learned Special Session Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have themselves compromised out of the Court on 27.05.2024 (Annexure-7 at page 64) and onwards reference whereof has been made in paragraph no. 12 of the application. He submits that the compromise application shall be filed before the court below and interregnum period, subject to verification, in the meantime, till the verification is done, interim protection be accorded.

5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that he has no objection to the same.

6. Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the application stands disposed of directing the applicant to approach the Court of learned Special Session Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra while filing the compromise application and a self-attested copy of the present application and certified copy of the order by 10.03.2025.

7. On the receipt of the same, the court below shall furnish the compromise so filed by the parties and shall conclude the process for verification by 23.05.2025.

8. Till the disposal of the compromise application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in pursuance of S.S.T. No. 333 of 2018 (State Vs. Pankaj Baghel), arising out of case crime no.222 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Etmadpur, District Agra pending before the court of learned Special Session Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra.

9. In the event of default of any of the conditions by the applicant as referred to above, the interim protection shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench.

10. It is always open for the applicant to take legal recourse, subject to the fate of the outcome of the compromise application.

11. The issue of deposit of the compensation by the victim shall also be looked into."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by this Court, both the parties have appeared before the court below alongwith the compromise application (Paper no.20 Ka.). Learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Agra has verified the compromise, vide order dated 21.4.2025, with an observation that both the parties were appeared and identified by their respective counsels. Compromise (Paper no.20 Ka) has been spelled out to the parties in the open court, who have admitted the factum of compromise. Thus, in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court compromise has been verified. In penultimate paragraph of order dated 21.4.2025 learned court concerned has directed the victim/ complainant to clarify their stand with respect to receiving the compensation under the S.C./S.T. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in paragraph no.6 of the compromise application, it has unequivocally been stated that the complainant/victim have not received any compensation/financial assistance from the Government. Moreover in paragraph no.27A of the affidavit filed in support of instant Application under Section 528 BNSS, it has been averred that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have not received any kind of financial assistance from the Government in connection with the FIR/charge sheet in question. For ready reference paragraph no.27A is quoted hereinbelow : "27A. (A) That in case of an FIR lodged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 by a member of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe category, the Government provides compensation to the victim from the State Grant Fund, but in this case, opposite party 2/3 has not received any kind of assistance from the Government in connection with the said FIR or charge sheet, which is written in the settlement paper paragraph along with the affidavit."

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and burried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

7. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge- sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :- "15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

8. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

10. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end and peace will be resorted between them. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

11. It is made clear that subsequently, in case, it is found that the complainant/victim has received compensation under the S.C./S.T. Act and has not made it good, they will be subjected to legal action as per law.

12. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement/agreement inked between the parties, which has been verified by the concerned court, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 13.8.2025/vkg VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Sri Adil Khan, learned Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3, which is taken on record. Office is directed to print his name as counsel for the opposite party.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 as well as learned A.G.A.

3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash the entire proceeding including charge sheet dated 02.07.2016 and cognizance order dated 21.01.2017 in Sessions Case No. 333 of 2018 (State Vs.Pankaj Baghel), arising out of Case Crime No. 222 of 2016 ,Under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under section 3(1) (X) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Etmadpur, District- Agra, pending before Special Judge SC/ST Act, Agra.

4. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and arrived at a compromise. Based on the said compromise, the present applicant, namely, Pankaj Bahgel, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court U/S 528 BNSS being Application No.5549 of 2025 (Pankaj Bahgel Vs.State Of U.P. And 2 Others). This court vide order dated 28.2.2025 (Annexure no.9) has disposed of the aforesaid application with a direction that the parties shall appear before the court below to get their compromise verified. It was left open for the applicant to take legal recourse subject to the facts and the outcome of the compromise application. For ready reference, order dated 28.02.2025 is quoted herein below :- "1. Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Shri Adil Khan (A/A 0119/2012), counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Shri Adil Khan (A/A 0119/2012), counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3

3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 333 of 2018 (State Vs. Pankaj Baghel), arising out of case crime no.222 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Etmadpur, District Agra pending before the court of learned Special Session Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have themselves compromised out of the Court on 27.05.2024 (Annexure-7 at page 64) and onwards reference whereof has been made in paragraph no. 12 of the application. He submits that the compromise application shall be filed before the court below and interregnum period, subject to verification, in the meantime, till the verification is done, interim protection be accorded.

5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that he has no objection to the same.

6. Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the application stands disposed of directing the applicant to approach the Court of learned Special Session Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra while filing the compromise application and a self-attested copy of the present application and certified copy of the order by 10.03.2025.

7. On the receipt of the same, the court below shall furnish the compromise so filed by the parties and shall conclude the process for verification by 23.05.2025.

8. Till the disposal of the compromise application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in pursuance of S.S.T. No. 333 of 2018 (State Vs. Pankaj Baghel), arising out of case crime no.222 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Etmadpur, District Agra pending before the court of learned Special Session Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra.

9. In the event of default of any of the conditions by the applicant as referred to above, the interim protection shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench.

10. It is always open for the applicant to take legal recourse, subject to the fate of the outcome of the compromise application.

11. The issue of deposit of the compensation by the victim shall also be looked into."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by this Court, both the parties have appeared before the court below alongwith the compromise application (Paper no.20 Ka.). Learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Agra has verified the compromise, vide order dated 21.4.2025, with an observation that both the parties were appeared and identified by their respective counsels. Compromise (Paper no.20 Ka) has been spelled out to the parties in the open court, who have admitted the factum of compromise. Thus, in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court compromise has been verified. In penultimate paragraph of order dated 21.4.2025 learned court concerned has directed the victim/ complainant to clarify their stand with respect to receiving the compensation under the S.C./S.T. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in paragraph no.6 of the compromise application, it has unequivocally been stated that the complainant/victim have not received any compensation/financial assistance from the Government. Moreover in paragraph no.27A of the affidavit filed in support of instant Application under Section 528 BNSS, it has been averred that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have not received any kind of financial assistance from the Government in connection with the FIR/charge sheet in question. For ready reference paragraph no.27A is quoted hereinbelow : "27A. (A) That in case of an FIR lodged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 by a member of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe category, the Government provides compensation to the victim from the State Grant Fund, but in this case, opposite party 2/3 has not received any kind of assistance from the Government in connection with the said FIR or charge sheet, which is written in the settlement paper paragraph along with the affidavit."

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and burried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

7. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge- sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :- "15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

8. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

10. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end and peace will be resorted between them. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

11. It is made clear that subsequently, in case, it is found that the complainant/victim has received compensation under the S.C./S.T. Act and has not made it good, they will be subjected to legal action as per law.

12. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement/agreement inked between the parties, which has been verified by the concerned court, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 13.8.2025/vkg VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad