Utkarsh Singh @ Somu Singh And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko & Anr.

Applicant :- Utkarsh Singh @ Somu Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and Sri Vinay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, who has filed a short counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

The instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C/ 528 B.N.S.S., the applicants have sought quashing of the proceedings of Session Case No. 1513 of 2024, arising out of FIR dated 17.012.2023 bearing Case Crime No. 849/2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC & Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act lodged at Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

The quashing of the proceedings has been sought on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise on 20.06.2025, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to affidavit filed in support of the application.

The learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 has supported the prayer made by the applicant and has given his consent for proceedings being quashed on the basis of compromise.

In the case of Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "17. ........where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a “special statute” would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482CrPC."

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the court and they are living peacefully and harmoniously and the informant does not want continuance of any proceedings against the applicants, I am of the view that the continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicants will not be in the interest of justice.