Allahabad High Court
Ikhtiyar Ahmad And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 April, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65509
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33169 of 2024
Applicant :- Ikhtiyar Ahmad And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ronak Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Singh,G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to allow this application and quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 155 of 2018 (State Vs. Ikhtiyar Ahmad and others) under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 IPC and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.- Kiratpur, District- Bijnor arising out Case Crime No. 19 of 2018, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bijnor on the basis of compromise and also prayed to stay the further proceedings in the aforesaid case.
3. On 21.10.2024, the following order was passed:-
"1. Compliance affidavit, filed today in Court, is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly.
2. In compliance of the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court, respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit of compliance with an averment that compensation amount received by him has been returned/deposited to the concerned account of the State Exchequer. Copy of the bank draft and receiving of the concerned authority (District Social Welfare Officer, Bijnor) is annexed as Annexure No.CA-1 to the affidavit.
3. It is submitted that both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. They inked compromise, which has been filed before the Court below, on their own volition without any duress, therefore, the instant application may be allowed and criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of the FIR may be quashed on the basis of said compromise.
4. Opposite party no. 2 has nodded the submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and admitted the factum of compromise took place between the parties. It is further contended that in changed circumstances, opposite party no.2 is no longer inclined to pursue the criminal proceedings against the present applicants and he has also deposited the compensation amount received under the SC/ST Act, therefore, criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise.
5. In this conspectus as above, learned Court concerned, before whom compromise application filed on behalf of the parties is pending consideration, shall verify the said compromise in presence of both the parties after recording their statements on oath and submit the verification report before this Court within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties who are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned on 18 November, 2024 to get their compromise verified.
6. List this matter on 08.1.2025 along with the verification report, if any.
7. It is made clear that before submitting compromise verification report, learned Court concerned shall verify the factum of depositing the payment of amount on behalf of respondent no.2, as stated before this Court.
8. Till the next date of listing, interim order, if any, is extended. "
4. In compliance of the order dated 13.12.2024, compromise verification report is placed on record as is evident from office report dated 07.01.2025. The letter of Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Bijnor dated 12.12.2024 has been placed on record along with order dated 10.12.2024 vide which compromise has been verified between the parties. The compensation as received by opposite party no.2 has also been returned as is evident from page no.9 of the affidavit filed by opposite party no.2.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,
(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,
(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
10. Accordingly, the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 155 of 2018 (State Vs. Ikhtiyar Ahmad and others) under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 IPC and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.- Kiratpur, District- Bijnor arising out Case Crime No. 19 of 2018, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bijnor, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.4.2025
Abhishek Singh
