Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

applicants/petitioners, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties which was duly verified by the Learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow, vide order dated 07.08.2025, through Annexure No.-5 to this affidavit, in pursuance of order dated 28.07.2025, passed by this Hon'ble Court in A-482 No. 5912 of 2025, Harish @Navaid Husain And 8 Others Vs State of UP & Another be quashed.

4. On 28.07.2025, the following order was passed:- ""Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party No. 2/complainant and has filed his Vakalatnama in the Court today, which is 2 A482 No. 8082 of 2025 taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Instant application has been preferred by the applicant(s) for the following main relief(s):- "The petitioners named above most respectfully begs to submit that for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the chargesheet No.- 1/ 2020 dated 29/11/2020 in Case Crime No. 0466 / 2020, U/S 147,148,323,504,307,336,325 IPC & 3 (2) 5 SC ST Act & 7 of The Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Gosaiganj, District - Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No.-2 Pending in the Court of Ld. Special Judge SC. ST. Act, Lucknow, registered as S.T. No. ? 1985 / 2021 (State Vs. Harish @ Navaid Husain and others) and for quashing of entire proceeding of Case Crime No. - 0466 / 2020, U/S ? 147,148,323,504,307,336,325 IPC & 3 (2) 5 SC ST Act & 7 of The Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Gosaiganj District - Lucknow and consequential Summoning order dated 02.03.2021, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties as contained in Annexure No.-3." It is stated that in the incident/altercation, which took place on 12.09.2020, persons from the both the sides sustained injuries and therefore, two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 0466/2020, basis of pending criminal proceedings, was lodged by opposite party No. 2/Lal Bahadur Pasi implicating the applicants on 12.09.2020 at about 23.48 hours making making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 307, 336 IPC, 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station- Gosaiganj, District- Lucknow and another FIR i.e. FIR No. 0467/2020 was lodged by Salman Husain implicating the persons from complainant's side on 13.09.2020 at about 00.38 hours making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307, 336, 427 IPC & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station- Gosaiganj, District- Lucknow. It is further stated that a perusal of story narrated in both the aforesaid FIRs would indicate that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and the offence if any would ultimately made out under Sections 324 or 325 IPC. It is further stated that during pendency of the proceedings in issue, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the present application. As such, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the trial court as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. 3 A482 No. 8082 of 2025 Considering the aforesaid, this application is disposed of finally in following terms:- (i) The parties to the proceedings in issue shall appear and file the compromise before the concerned court within four week's from today. (ii) If the parties appear before the concerned court in terms of above, the concerned Court shall proceed to verify the compromise between the parties to the proceedings and prepare a report to the same effect and the original compromise deed be made part of record. (iii) The concerned court shall conclude the process of verification of compromise within two week's from the date of production of copy of this order. (iv) The concerned court shall permit the parties to the proceedings to obtain the certified copy of the report as well as compromise deed. (v) It shall be open to the applicant(s) to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. (vi) Office is directed to provide original compromise, if any, to the counsel for the applicant(s), after retaining its photocopy on record. It is for the purposes for its verification by the concerned court. (vii) For a period of eight weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case.""

5. The coordinate bench of this Court while referring the matter for verification has taken note of fact that as per the story narrated in the first information report indicates that the offence under section 307 of IPC is not made out rather it would ultimately made out under sections 324 and 325 of IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to certain misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants. He added that later on, the parties sat together and have amicably settled their disputes, which has been reduced in writing on 26.06.2025. Thereafter, the applicants filed an Application U/S 482 No.5912 of 2025 wherein this Court vide order dated 28.07.2025 has directed the trial court to verify the said compromise deed and in compliance thereof, the compromise deed was verified on 07.08.2025. He submits that now there is no dispute in between the parties and they have settled their dispute. He submits that further criminal proceedings in the instant matter would amount to harassment and, thus, the instant criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed. 4 A482 No. 8082 of 2025

7. He next added that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021, SCC Online SC 966 and has referred paragraphs nos. 9,10,11 & 16, which are extracted hereinunder : "9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that two questions fall for our consideration in the present appeal. First, whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a 'noncompoundable offence? If yes, then whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act ?

10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified

applicants/petitioners, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties which was duly verified by the Learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow, vide order dated 07.08.2025, through Annexure No.-5 to this affidavit, in pursuance of order dated 28.07.2025, passed by this Hon'ble Court in A-482 No. 5912 of 2025, Harish @Navaid Husain And 8 Others Vs State of UP & Another be quashed.

4. On 28.07.2025, the following order was passed:- ""Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party No. 2/complainant and has filed his Vakalatnama in the Court today, which is 2 A482 No. 8082 of 2025 taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Instant application has been preferred by the applicant(s) for the following main relief(s):- "The petitioners named above most respectfully begs to submit that for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the chargesheet No.- 1/ 2020 dated 29/11/2020 in Case Crime No. 0466 / 2020, U/S 147,148,323,504,307,336,325 IPC & 3 (2) 5 SC ST Act & 7 of The Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Gosaiganj, District - Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No.-2 Pending in the Court of Ld. Special Judge SC. ST. Act, Lucknow, registered as S.T. No. ? 1985 / 2021 (State Vs. Harish @ Navaid Husain and others) and for quashing of entire proceeding of Case Crime No. - 0466 / 2020, U/S ? 147,148,323,504,307,336,325 IPC & 3 (2) 5 SC ST Act & 7 of The Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Gosaiganj District - Lucknow and consequential Summoning order dated 02.03.2021, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties as contained in Annexure No.-3." It is stated that in the incident/altercation, which took place on 12.09.2020, persons from the both the sides sustained injuries and therefore, two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 0466/2020, basis of pending criminal proceedings, was lodged by opposite party No. 2/Lal Bahadur Pasi implicating the applicants on 12.09.2020 at about 23.48 hours making making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 307, 336 IPC, 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station- Gosaiganj, District- Lucknow and another FIR i.e. FIR No. 0467/2020 was lodged by Salman Husain implicating the persons from complainant's side on 13.09.2020 at about 00.38 hours making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307, 336, 427 IPC & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station- Gosaiganj, District- Lucknow. It is further stated that a perusal of story narrated in both the aforesaid FIRs would indicate that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and the offence if any would ultimately made out under Sections 324 or 325 IPC. It is further stated that during pendency of the proceedings in issue, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the present application. As such, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the trial court as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. 3 A482 No. 8082 of 2025 Considering the aforesaid, this application is disposed of finally in following terms:- (i) The parties to the proceedings in issue shall appear and file the compromise before the concerned court within four week's from today. (ii) If the parties appear before the concerned court in terms of above, the concerned Court shall proceed to verify the compromise between the parties to the proceedings and prepare a report to the same effect and the original compromise deed be made part of record. (iii) The concerned court shall conclude the process of verification of compromise within two week's from the date of production of copy of this order. (iv) The concerned court shall permit the parties to the proceedings to obtain the certified copy of the report as well as compromise deed. (v) It shall be open to the applicant(s) to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. (vi) Office is directed to provide original compromise, if any, to the counsel for the applicant(s), after retaining its photocopy on record. It is for the purposes for its verification by the concerned court. (vii) For a period of eight weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case.""

5. The coordinate bench of this Court while referring the matter for verification has taken note of fact that as per the story narrated in the first information report indicates that the offence under section 307 of IPC is not made out rather it would ultimately made out under sections 324 and 325 of IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to certain misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants. He added that later on, the parties sat together and have amicably settled their disputes, which has been reduced in writing on 26.06.2025. Thereafter, the applicants filed an Application U/S 482 No.5912 of 2025 wherein this Court vide order dated 28.07.2025 has directed the trial court to verify the said compromise deed and in compliance thereof, the compromise deed was verified on 07.08.2025. He submits that now there is no dispute in between the parties and they have settled their dispute. He submits that further criminal proceedings in the instant matter would amount to harassment and, thus, the instant criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed. 4 A482 No. 8082 of 2025

7. He next added that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021, SCC Online SC 966 and has referred paragraphs nos. 9,10,11 & 16, which are extracted hereinunder : "9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that two questions fall for our consideration in the present appeal. First, whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a 'noncompoundable offence? If yes, then whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act ?

10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified