Pankaj Kumar Gautam And Others vs Sanjay Kumar Singh, Prabhu Sharan, Ram Chandra

No. 772 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hardoi and the proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 10.05.2024 (Annexure No.SA-24) entered into between the parties. Vide order dated 22.4.2025, the parties were directed to appear and file compromise deed before the trial court on 1.5.2025 for the purpose of verification regarding genuineness of the compromise. Supplementary affidavit dated 13.10.2025 annexing the verification report dated 6.5.2025 filed by learned counsel for applicants, is already on record. Learned counsel for applicants submits that in deference to the said order, a report dated 6.5.2025 of Civil Judge (J.D.), Hardoi reveals that as per statements made by the parties in the Court, they have voluntarily entered into a compromise. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for applicants states that none of the applicants has been declared as proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for applicants further submits that the parties have amicably resolved their differences with the intervention of the elderly people of society, therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings in the subject F.I.R. would not serve any useful purpose, and in case the compromise between the parties is 2 A482 No. 5828 of 2019 not accepted it would take away an opportunity from them to rebuild cordial relations. The compromise has been verified by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and the learned State Counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also discussed the powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the relevant portion reads as under :- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in 3 A482 No. 5828 of 2019 nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." Upon analyzing the above background, nature of the offences as well as the common stand of the parties relating to compromise whereby they have burried the hatchet, this Court finds that the parties have settled the dispute and decided to live in peace, therefore, it is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bring an end to the above prosecution, as no meaningful purpose would be served, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. Resultantly, present application succeeds and Charge Sheet dated 5.12.2017, cognizance order dated 2.5.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate II, Hardoi in Criminal Case No. 772 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hardoi and the proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed. The application is allowed. November 27, 2025 Raj (Manoj Bajaj,J.) RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

No. 772 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hardoi and the proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 10.05.2024 (Annexure No.SA-24) entered into between the parties. Vide order dated 22.4.2025, the parties were directed to appear and file compromise deed before the trial court on 1.5.2025 for the purpose of verification regarding genuineness of the compromise. Supplementary affidavit dated 13.10.2025 annexing the verification report dated 6.5.2025 filed by learned counsel for applicants, is already on record. Learned counsel for applicants submits that in deference to the said order, a report dated 6.5.2025 of Civil Judge (J.D.), Hardoi reveals that as per statements made by the parties in the Court, they have voluntarily entered into a compromise. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for applicants states that none of the applicants has been declared as proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for applicants further submits that the parties have amicably resolved their differences with the intervention of the elderly people of society, therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings in the subject F.I.R. would not serve any useful purpose, and in case the compromise between the parties is 2 A482 No. 5828 of 2019 not accepted it would take away an opportunity from them to rebuild cordial relations. The compromise has been verified by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and the learned State Counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also discussed the powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the relevant portion reads as under :- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in 3 A482 No. 5828 of 2019 nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." Upon analyzing the above background, nature of the offences as well as the common stand of the parties relating to compromise whereby they have burried the hatchet, this Court finds that the parties have settled the dispute and decided to live in peace, therefore, it is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bring an end to the above prosecution, as no meaningful purpose would be served, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. Resultantly, present application succeeds and Charge Sheet dated 5.12.2017, cognizance order dated 2.5.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate II, Hardoi in Criminal Case No. 772 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hardoi and the proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed. The application is allowed. November 27, 2025 Raj (Manoj Bajaj,J.) RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench