State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another vs Counsel for Applicant(s)

Nisha Srivastava G.A. Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Sri Dinesh Kumalr Bharti, Advocate has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2/informant and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard, Smt. Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dinesh Kumalr Bharti, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

3. By means of the instant application, the applicants Vimlesh Kumar & others have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of the Case No. 289/2022 (State Versus Deena Nath & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0229/2019, under sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, relating to Police Station-Sadarpur, District-Sitapur, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur. For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying petition, duly supported by an affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Chargesheet No. 213/2019, dated 06.11.2019 and the entire Criminal Proceeding (Case No. 289/2022) including the summoning order dated 06.08.2025, and/or pass any other order or direction which is deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He next added that due to some misunderstanding the instant FIR was lodged and no incident has ever taken place. He next added that thereafter the parties sat together and they have settled their disputes by way of executing compromise deed and that too has been reduced in writing on 18.09.2025. Adding his arguments, he submits that now the parties have put their all disputes at rest by way of executing compromise deed and thus further criminal proceedings against the present applicant would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicant. 2 A482 No. 8303 of 2025

5. 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 that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription 3 (1999) 5 SCC 238 4 (2005) 1 SCC 343 5 Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.

11. The Court in Ramgopal (Supra) further postulated that criminal proceedings involving nonheinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck postconviction, the Courts should, inter alia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held: "19 Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations." [Emphasis Applied] 3 A482 No. 8303 of 2025

16. On the other hand, 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 482 Cr.P.C."

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of the applicant and submits that the parties have entered into compromise deed and now there is no dispute in between the parties and thus the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped.

7. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

8. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 26.05.2025 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned case, namely, State Versus Jeetu Yadav and others, arising out of aforementioned Case Crime No. 204 of 2022.

9. In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 18.09.2025 and no grievance remains to be agitated and as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

10. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of Case No. 289/2022 (State Versus Deena Nath & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0229 of 2019, under sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, relating to Police Station-Sadarpur, District-Sitapur is hereby quashed.

11. The compromise deed shall be part of this order.

12. Consequences to be followed.

13. The application is allowed accordingly. 4 A482 No. 8303 of 2025

14. The officer shall communicate this order to the court concerned forthwith. September 25, 2025 Haseen U. (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nisha Srivastava G.A. Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Sri Dinesh Kumalr Bharti, Advocate has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2/informant and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard, Smt. Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dinesh Kumalr Bharti, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

3. By means of the instant application, the applicants Vimlesh Kumar & others have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of the Case No. 289/2022 (State Versus Deena Nath & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0229/2019, under sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, relating to Police Station-Sadarpur, District-Sitapur, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur. For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying petition, duly supported by an affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Chargesheet No. 213/2019, dated 06.11.2019 and the entire Criminal Proceeding (Case No. 289/2022) including the summoning order dated 06.08.2025, and/or pass any other order or direction which is deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He next added that due to some misunderstanding the instant FIR was lodged and no incident has ever taken place. He next added that thereafter the parties sat together and they have settled their disputes by way of executing compromise deed and that too has been reduced in writing on 18.09.2025. Adding his arguments, he submits that now the parties have put their all disputes at rest by way of executing compromise deed and thus further criminal proceedings against the present applicant would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicant. 2 A482 No. 8303 of 2025

5. 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 that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription 3 (1999) 5 SCC 238 4 (2005) 1 SCC 343 5 Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.

11. The Court in Ramgopal (Supra) further postulated that criminal proceedings involving nonheinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck postconviction, the Courts should, inter alia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held: "19 Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations." [Emphasis Applied] 3 A482 No. 8303 of 2025

16. On the other hand, 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 482 Cr.P.C."

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of the applicant and submits that the parties have entered into compromise deed and now there is no dispute in between the parties and thus the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped.

7. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

8. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 26.05.2025 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned case, namely, State Versus Jeetu Yadav and others, arising out of aforementioned Case Crime No. 204 of 2022.

9. In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 18.09.2025 and no grievance remains to be agitated and as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

10. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of Case No. 289/2022 (State Versus Deena Nath & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0229 of 2019, under sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, relating to Police Station-Sadarpur, District-Sitapur is hereby quashed.

11. The compromise deed shall be part of this order.

12. Consequences to be followed.

13. The application is allowed accordingly. 4 A482 No. 8303 of 2025

14. The officer shall communicate this order to the court concerned forthwith. September 25, 2025 Haseen U. (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench