Vivek vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4349 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vivek vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 August, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135926
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7774 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Vivek
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kishore Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Monu Upadhyay
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

2. The applicant has filed a copy of the supplementary affidavit today in Court along with a certified copy of the compromise which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed, accordingly.

3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 172 of 2023 (State Vs. Tanmay and others) arising out of the case crime no. 207 of 2023 under Section 504, 506 IPC and under Section 67 of the I.T. Act and 11/12 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(VA) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad as well as charge-sheet dated 03.05.2023 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 23.05.2023 pending before the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Ghaziabad.

4. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 29.05.2025, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order date 29.05.2025 passed by this Court is quoted herein below:

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

2. The applicant-Vivek has filed application under Section 528 BNSS No. 7774 of 2025 praying to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.172 of 2023 (State Vs. Tanmay and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 207 of 2023, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.c. and under Section 67 I.T. Act and 11/12 of POCSO Act and 3(2) (VA) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sihani gate, District Ghaziabad as well as charge sheet dated 03.05.2023 alongwith cognizance/summoning order dated 23.05.2023, pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Ghaziabad and applicant- Tanme Alias Tanmay Alias Karan has preferred application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.6737 of 2024 to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 142 of 2023 (State Vs. Tanme @ Tanmay @ Karan & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 207 of 2023, under Sections 354, 504, 506, 387 I.P.C. & 67 of I.T. Act, and 11/12 of POCSO Act & Section 3(2)5Ka of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Sinhani Gate, District Ghaziabad as well as charge sheet dated 03.05.2023 alongwith cognizance/summoning order dated 23.05.2023, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.27, Ghaziabad.

3. As the parties have arrived at a compromise, therefore, the matter was sent before the court concerned for verification of the compromise. It was also directed that the victim/opposite party no.2 shall return the compensation and placed its original receipt before the Court showing the aforesaid.

4. In compliance of aforesaid order, the compromise between the parties has been verified by order dated 16.03.2024 which has been placed at page 74 of the application under Section 528 BNSS No. 7774 of 2025 ( Vivek Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). The verification order mentions about the presence of the victim as well as Tanme Alias Tanmay Alias Karan, however, it does not mention anything about the compromise being entered into between the victim and the Vivek.

5. In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with an application as well as certified copy of this order and are permitted to file a proper compromise deed. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

6. Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

7. Put up this case on 14.07.2025, as fresh.

8. As the earlier compromise is not genuine therefore, verification order is not proper in the absence of Vivek. Victim is also directed to return the compensation as received by her.

9. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad shall also verify and send a report to this Court as to whether the opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, same has been returned or not. In case the compensation amount is not returned, the concerned District Magistrate is directed to proceed in accordance with law to recover the same and send a report accordingly.

10. Learned A.G.A. as well as Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into compliance of this order.

11. Till the next date of listing, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

5. In compliance of the order dated 29.05.2025 as mentioned above, learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad has submitted compromise verification report dated 11.07.2025 to the fact that the first informant, the victim and the accused have appeared along with a compromise application (Paper No. 18Ka/1 to 18Ka/3). The parties have recorded their statement and in open court, in presence of the parties, compromise has been verified.

6. District Social Welfare Officer has submitted a report dated 20.06.2025, as well as, in compliance of the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by this Court. As per report of the District Social Welfare Officer, victim has returned the compensation amount received by her, under the SC/ST Act, through challan no. LL89517 dated 21.12.2024.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant 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.

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

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

Order Date :- 11.8.2025

A. V. Singh