High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party 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 proceeding due to settlement of the parties against the applicants in Session Trial No. 38 of 2010, In pursuance of charge sheet dated 18.06.2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2009, U/s 147, 323, 325, 504, 427 of I.P.C.& U/s 3(1)(X) of SC/St Act, P.S.- Manduadeeh District- Varanasi (State Vs Nanhe@ Vinod Singh and others) pending before Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi as well as the cognizance order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -III, Varanasi.

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, this Court, vide its order dated 27.11.2024, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order dated 27.11.2024 passed by this Court is quoted herein below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA representing State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the record on board.

2. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and arrived at compromise dated 19.9.2021. At present, both the parties have buried the hatchet and they have no grudge against each other. Therefore, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the compromise.

3. Learned AGA has no objection in case a direction is issued to the court concerned for verification of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. In this conspectus, as above, both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned on 16/17.12.2024. Learned court concerned, in turn, shall verify the same in the presence of both the parties after recording their statements and submit his verification report before this Court within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties.

5. It is made clear that at the time of verification of compromise application, learned court concerned shall also verify the fact as to whether complainant/victim has received any compensation amount from the State under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 or not. If so received, the same shall be made good and deposited/returned in Government exchequer. The court concerned shall call for a report from the concerned District Social Welfare Officer as to whether received compensation amount has been deposited/returned by the victim or not.

6. List this matter on 13.3.2025 along with verification report submitted by the court concerned, if any.

7. It is further directed that on the next date fixed, opposite party No. 2 shall appear through counsel.

8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Session Trial No. 38 of 2010, (Case Crime No. 118 of 2009), under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 427 of I.P.C. & 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Manduadeeh, District- Varanasi."

4. In compliance of the order dated 27.11.2024, Special Judge SC/ST Act, Varanasi has submitted its report dated 11.03.2025 to the effect that compromise dated 19.02.2024 has been verified in presence of both the parties. He has further observed that the first informants/all the victims have returned compensation amount/financial assistance received by them under the SC/ST Act except the three victims, namely, Adalat Ram Kannaujiya, Ram Bahadur and Bittan, who are reported to have died. Along with the report dated 11.03.2025, the learned court concerned has also submitted the compromise verification order dated 01.03.2025. The District Social Welfare Officer, Varanasi has also submitted its reported dated 05.03.2025 to the effect that except the aforesaid victims, namely, Adalat Ram Kannaujiya, Ram Bahadur and Bittan, the remaining victims have deposited/returned the compensation amount in the Government exchequer. As per compromise verification order dated 01.03.2025, 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. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties. For ready reference order dated 01.03.2025 and 11.03.2025 are quoted herein below: "ददनननक -01.03.2025 आज पककनरगण मननननय उचच नयनयनलय कक पनररननपत अनतगरत धनरन 482 सनखयन-39346/2024 ननहह दवननद ससनह और चनर अनय बननम सटकट आर यय०पन० एवन एक अनय मह पनररत आदकश ददनननदकत उरर 27.11.2024 कक अननपनलन मह नयनयनलय मह उपससरत आकर दनसखल सनलहननमन कक पररपककय मह अपनन पहचननपत एवन रनटन पसतनत कर सजसकन उनकक अपनक- अपनक असधवकनगण दनरन सतयनदपत करतक हहयक सनलहननमन तसदनक दकयन गयन। आज सजलन समनज कलयनण असधकनरन दनरन कदतपयदतर धनरनदश वनपसन कक बनबतत कनई आखयन पसतनत नहह कक गयन। अतत आखयन ददनननक 11.3.2025 तक आहहत हन। मननननय उचच नयनयनलय कन आहहत आखयन कक सनर सनलहननमन तसदनक हननक कक सयचनन अदवलमब पकदषत कक जनयक। दवशकष नयनयनधनश (एस०सन०/एस०टन०एकट), वनरनणसन। " "ददनननक -11.03.2025 सजसकक अननसनर भन०दन०सन० एवन 3(1)(x) एस०सन०/ पतनवलन पकश हहयन। सजलन समनज कलयनण असधकनरन दनरन कदतपयदतर धनरनदश वनपसन कक बनबतत कनई आखयन दवशकष सत परनकण सनखयन-38/2010 मन0 अ 0 सन0-118/2009 धनरन पनप हहयन एस०टन० एकट, 147,323,325,504,427 रननन मणडन वनडनह वनरनणसन मह कक दर सभन आठ पनदडतत मह सक मनगर, रनजकन मनरन, कन ल धनरनदश मन० 31,250/- र०) सक ( चनलनन कक मनधयम सक सजलन समनज कलयन दवभनगनय लकखन शनषरक मह जमन दकयन गयन हह एवन शकष पनदडतन अदनलतरनम कननसजयन, रनमबहनदनर एवन दबटन कक ममतयन हन जननक कक कनरण उनकक दनरन कदतपयदतर कक धनरनदश पतयकक दनरन जन दक 6250/- र0 नहह जमन कक गयन हह। सनलहननमन तसदनक हननक एवन कदतपयदतर कक धनरनदश जमन हननक कक आखयन मननननय उचच नयनयनलय कन अदवलमब पकदषत कक जनयक। पतनवलन ददनननक 02.04.2025 तकजबनहदनर पतयकक दनरन 6250/-र0 गणकश पसनद, धनपतन, पनप कक गयन रन, कन पकश हन। दवशकष नयनयनधनश (एस०सन०/एस०टन०एकट), वनरनणसन। "

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 want 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 :- 5.8.2025 Sumit K. SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party 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 proceeding due to settlement of the parties against the applicants in Session Trial No. 38 of 2010, In pursuance of charge sheet dated 18.06.2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2009, U/s 147, 323, 325, 504, 427 of I.P.C.& U/s 3(1)(X) of SC/St Act, P.S.- Manduadeeh District- Varanasi (State Vs Nanhe@ Vinod Singh and others) pending before Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi as well as the cognizance order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -III, Varanasi.

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, this Court, vide its order dated 27.11.2024, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order dated 27.11.2024 passed by this Court is quoted herein below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA representing State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the record on board.

2. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and arrived at compromise dated 19.9.2021. At present, both the parties have buried the hatchet and they have no grudge against each other. Therefore, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the compromise.

3. Learned AGA has no objection in case a direction is issued to the court concerned for verification of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. In this conspectus, as above, both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned on 16/17.12.2024. Learned court concerned, in turn, shall verify the same in the presence of both the parties after recording their statements and submit his verification report before this Court within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties.

5. It is made clear that at the time of verification of compromise application, learned court concerned shall also verify the fact as to whether complainant/victim has received any compensation amount from the State under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 or not. If so received, the same shall be made good and deposited/returned in Government exchequer. The court concerned shall call for a report from the concerned District Social Welfare Officer as to whether received compensation amount has been deposited/returned by the victim or not.

6. List this matter on 13.3.2025 along with verification report submitted by the court concerned, if any.

7. It is further directed that on the next date fixed, opposite party No. 2 shall appear through counsel.

8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Session Trial No. 38 of 2010, (Case Crime No. 118 of 2009), under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 427 of I.P.C. & 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Manduadeeh, District- Varanasi."

4. In compliance of the order dated 27.11.2024, Special Judge SC/ST Act, Varanasi has submitted its report dated 11.03.2025 to the effect that compromise dated 19.02.2024 has been verified in presence of both the parties. He has further observed that the first informants/all the victims have returned compensation amount/financial assistance received by them under the SC/ST Act except the three victims, namely, Adalat Ram Kannaujiya, Ram Bahadur and Bittan, who are reported to have died. Along with the report dated 11.03.2025, the learned court concerned has also submitted the compromise verification order dated 01.03.2025. The District Social Welfare Officer, Varanasi has also submitted its reported dated 05.03.2025 to the effect that except the aforesaid victims, namely, Adalat Ram Kannaujiya, Ram Bahadur and Bittan, the remaining victims have deposited/returned the compensation amount in the Government exchequer. As per compromise verification order dated 01.03.2025, 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. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties. For ready reference order dated 01.03.2025 and 11.03.2025 are quoted herein below: "ददनननक -01.03.2025 आज पककनरगण मननननय उचच नयनयनलय कक पनररननपत अनतगरत धनरन 482 सनखयन-39346/2024 ननहह दवननद ससनह और चनर अनय बननम सटकट आर यय०पन० एवन एक अनय मह पनररत आदकश ददनननदकत उरर 27.11.2024 कक अननपनलन मह नयनयनलय मह उपससरत आकर दनसखल सनलहननमन कक पररपककय मह अपनन पहचननपत एवन रनटन पसतनत कर सजसकन उनकक अपनक- अपनक असधवकनगण दनरन सतयनदपत करतक हहयक सनलहननमन तसदनक दकयन गयन। आज सजलन समनज कलयनण असधकनरन दनरन कदतपयदतर धनरनदश वनपसन कक बनबतत कनई आखयन पसतनत नहह कक गयन। अतत आखयन ददनननक 11.3.2025 तक आहहत हन। मननननय उचच नयनयनलय कन आहहत आखयन कक सनर सनलहननमन तसदनक हननक कक सयचनन अदवलमब पकदषत कक जनयक। दवशकष नयनयनधनश (एस०सन०/एस०टन०एकट), वनरनणसन। " "ददनननक -11.03.2025 सजसकक अननसनर भन०दन०सन० एवन 3(1)(x) एस०सन०/ पतनवलन पकश हहयन। सजलन समनज कलयनण असधकनरन दनरन कदतपयदतर धनरनदश वनपसन कक बनबतत कनई आखयन दवशकष सत परनकण सनखयन-38/2010 मन0 अ 0 सन0-118/2009 धनरन पनप हहयन एस०टन० एकट, 147,323,325,504,427 रननन मणडन वनडनह वनरनणसन मह कक दर सभन आठ पनदडतत मह सक मनगर, रनजकन मनरन, कन ल धनरनदश मन० 31,250/- र०) सक ( चनलनन कक मनधयम सक सजलन समनज कलयन दवभनगनय लकखन शनषरक मह जमन दकयन गयन हह एवन शकष पनदडतन अदनलतरनम कननसजयन, रनमबहनदनर एवन दबटन कक ममतयन हन जननक कक कनरण उनकक दनरन कदतपयदतर कक धनरनदश पतयकक दनरन जन दक 6250/- र0 नहह जमन कक गयन हह। सनलहननमन तसदनक हननक एवन कदतपयदतर कक धनरनदश जमन हननक कक आखयन मननननय उचच नयनयनलय कन अदवलमब पकदषत कक जनयक। पतनवलन ददनननक 02.04.2025 तकजबनहदनर पतयकक दनरन 6250/-र0 गणकश पसनद, धनपतन, पनप कक गयन रन, कन पकश हन। दवशकष नयनयनधनश (एस०सन०/एस०टन०एकट), वनरनणसन। "

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 want 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 :- 5.8.2025 Sumit K. SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad