High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of S.T. No. 781 of 2022 (State Vs. Gajendra and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 352 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 352 I.P.C., Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar pending in the Court of District and Session Judge Kushinagar.

3. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 25.10.2024, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order date 25.10.2024 is quoted herein below: "1. Heard Shri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for o.p. no. 2 and perused the records.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 781 of 2022 (State Vs. Gajendra and others), arising out of case crime no. 352 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 352 IPC, P.S. Ramkola, district Kushinagar on the basis of compromise.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the Court and the opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants. The compromise has taken place on 18-10-2024 and the compromise-deed has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the application.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. In view of above facts, the parties shall file an application along with the compromise-deed before the concerned Court below and appear before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise in the week commencing 11-11-2024. On receiving the said application the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise and prepare a verification report. The concerned Court shall send the verification report to this Court, which may be placed in the file.

6. List on 10-12-2024 as fresh along with report of verification of compromise.

7. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in pursuance of the aforesaid proceedings."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 25.10.2024, learned District and Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna has submitted a verification report dated 02.12.2024 along with copies of documents i.e. copy of verified compromise deed dated 18.01.2024, copy of statement of informant Anil Kumar (CW-1), copy of statement of injured witness Baburam (CW-2), copy of statement of injured witness Kamli Devi (CW-3), copy of statement of injured witness Chanda (CW-4), copy of statement of injured witness Munni Devi (CW-5), copy of statement of accused person Omprakash (CW-6), copy of statement of accused person Arvind (CW-7), copy of statement of accused person Manoj (CW- 8), copy of statement of accused person Vijendra (CW-9), copy of statement of accused person Arjun (CW-10), copy of statement of accused person Gajendra (CW-11) and copy of order dated 26.11.2024 passed by this Court. Learned court concerned has observed that both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The contents of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have nodded the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified on the consent of the parties.

5. 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 criminal 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 buried 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 applicants 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.

6. 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."

7. 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.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 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.

9. 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, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. 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.

10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Sumit K. SUMIT KUMAR SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of S.T. No. 781 of 2022 (State Vs. Gajendra and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 352 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 352 I.P.C., Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar pending in the Court of District and Session Judge Kushinagar.

3. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 25.10.2024, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order date 25.10.2024 is quoted herein below: "1. Heard Shri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for o.p. no. 2 and perused the records.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 781 of 2022 (State Vs. Gajendra and others), arising out of case crime no. 352 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 352 IPC, P.S. Ramkola, district Kushinagar on the basis of compromise.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the Court and the opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants. The compromise has taken place on 18-10-2024 and the compromise-deed has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the application.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. In view of above facts, the parties shall file an application along with the compromise-deed before the concerned Court below and appear before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise in the week commencing 11-11-2024. On receiving the said application the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise and prepare a verification report. The concerned Court shall send the verification report to this Court, which may be placed in the file.

6. List on 10-12-2024 as fresh along with report of verification of compromise.

7. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in pursuance of the aforesaid proceedings."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 25.10.2024, learned District and Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna has submitted a verification report dated 02.12.2024 along with copies of documents i.e. copy of verified compromise deed dated 18.01.2024, copy of statement of informant Anil Kumar (CW-1), copy of statement of injured witness Baburam (CW-2), copy of statement of injured witness Kamli Devi (CW-3), copy of statement of injured witness Chanda (CW-4), copy of statement of injured witness Munni Devi (CW-5), copy of statement of accused person Omprakash (CW-6), copy of statement of accused person Arvind (CW-7), copy of statement of accused person Manoj (CW- 8), copy of statement of accused person Vijendra (CW-9), copy of statement of accused person Arjun (CW-10), copy of statement of accused person Gajendra (CW-11) and copy of order dated 26.11.2024 passed by this Court. Learned court concerned has observed that both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The contents of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have nodded the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified on the consent of the parties.

5. 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 criminal 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 buried 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 applicants 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.

6. 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."

7. 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.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 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.

9. 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, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. 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.

10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Sumit K. SUMIT KUMAR SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad