Shyamu And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 3266 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shyamu And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 August, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130809
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22330 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Shyamu And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Tiwari,Indradeep Dubey,Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Sanjay Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prinshu Singh,Rajesh Kumar,Shailendra Kumar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A representing State-respondent No. 1 and perused the record on board.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge III, Basti in S.T. number 251 of 2011 dated 13.1.2021 (State vs. Dhupa and Others) arising out Case Crime No. 55/08 under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Parasrampur, District- Basti, pending in the Court of learned Additional Session and District Judge Basti, Court No.3, Basti, and stay the further proceedings against the applicants in the above mentioned case.

3. During pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 09.05.2022, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, aforesaid order dated 09.05.2022 is quoted herein below:

" Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Basti in S.T. Number 251 of 2011 dated 13.01.2021 arising out of case crime no. 55 of 2008 under Section 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Parasrampur, District- Basti pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basti, Court No.3, Basti in the light of compromise 13.01.2021 arrived between the parties, copy of the same is annexed in the application.

Learned counsel for the applicants states that matter has been compromised between the parties. He further states that the compromise dated 13.01.2021 (annexure-5) has been filed before the Court below but same has not been verified as yet by the learned court below.

On these facts, as the matter have arrived for some amicable settlement regarding which compromise duly arrived at between the parties is pending verification before learned court below and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to protect the right of the applicants pending final disposal of the matter. Learned counsel also submits that as the parties have entered into amicable settlement, there is no likelihood of conviction in the matter.

As an interim measure, till the next date of listing, further proceedings of S.T. Number 251 of 2011 dated 13.01.2021 arising out of case crime no. 55 of 2008 under Section 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Parasrampur, District- Basti pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basti, Court No.3, Basti shall be kept in abeyance.

However, learned counsel for the applicants, as prayed, is granted three weeks time to get the compromise deed (annexure-4 verified from the court below and file a certified copy thereof, on or before the next date of listing before this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of this order before the court below within 10 days from today for compliance, failing which, interim protection given by this Court shall cease to operate and law will take its own course.

As prayed, put up as fresh in the week commencing 25.07.2022."

4. In compliance of the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by this Court, learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit dated 23.07.2022 along with certified copy of the compromise coupled with compromise verification order dated 24.05.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Tract Court II, Basti. As per the compromise verification report, both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The contents/conditions of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of the compromise. Accordingly, in presence of both the parties, the compromise has been verified.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

6. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :-

"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

7. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not want to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

9. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.

Order Date :- 4.8.2025

Sumit K.