Chhitu Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another

1. Sri Dhanur Singh, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama and counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhanur Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The instant application has been filed with the following main prayer:- "To pass an order thereby quashing the impugned charge sheet, contained in Annexure No.2, as well as entire proceeding of the Special Session Trial (SC/ST Act) No. 719 of 2011, concerning Case Crime No. 131 of 2011, under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC And Sections 3(1)X SC/ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Raebareli, pending in the court of Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Raebareli [State versus Chhitu Lal Yadav, on the basis of the compromise and amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties dated 20-09-2025, contained in Annexure No.4 to this application"

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 20.09.2025, which has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to the instant application. He next 2 A482 No. 8404 of 2025 added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicant are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicant and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance in the case of Ramawatar Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh,2021 SCC Online SC 966 and has referred paragraph 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, interalia, 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: 3 A482 No. 8404 of 2025 "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]

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. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present appellants is squarely covered with the ratio of the aforesaid Judgment.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicant and the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped.

8. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

9. Now 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.

10. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. 4 A482 No. 8404 of 2025

11. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

12. For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Special Session Trial (SC/ST Act) No. 719 of 2011, concerning Case Crime No. 131 of 2011, under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC And Sections 3(1)X SC/ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Raebareli,, shall remain stayed so far as applicant is concerned.

13. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.

14. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicant, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same. September 26, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Sri Dhanur Singh, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama and counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhanur Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The instant application has been filed with the following main prayer:- "To pass an order thereby quashing the impugned charge sheet, contained in Annexure No.2, as well as entire proceeding of the Special Session Trial (SC/ST Act) No. 719 of 2011, concerning Case Crime No. 131 of 2011, under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC And Sections 3(1)X SC/ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Raebareli, pending in the court of Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Raebareli [State versus Chhitu Lal Yadav, on the basis of the compromise and amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties dated 20-09-2025, contained in Annexure No.4 to this application"

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 20.09.2025, which has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to the instant application. He next 2 A482 No. 8404 of 2025 added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicant are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicant and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance in the case of Ramawatar Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh,2021 SCC Online SC 966 and has referred paragraph 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, interalia, 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: 3 A482 No. 8404 of 2025 "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]

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. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present appellants is squarely covered with the ratio of the aforesaid Judgment.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicant and the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped.

8. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

9. Now 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.

10. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. 4 A482 No. 8404 of 2025

11. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

12. For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Special Session Trial (SC/ST Act) No. 719 of 2011, concerning Case Crime No. 131 of 2011, under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC And Sections 3(1)X SC/ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Raebareli,, shall remain stayed so far as applicant is concerned.

13. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.

14. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicant, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same. September 26, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench