Mannan And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6938 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mannan And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146092
 

 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146092
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12926 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Mannan And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Diwan Saifullah Khan,Mohd Kamil
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shama Parveen
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record on board.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2260 of 2023 (State Vs. Mannan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 112 of 2022, under Section 147, 323, 352, 452, 504 and 506 ??C, Police Station Falawada, District Meerut on the basis of compromise dated 1.5.2024.

3. During pendency of the proceeding, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court, vide order dated 15.5.2025, has directed the court concerned to verify the compromise took place between the parties and submit a verification report. For ready reference, the order dated 15.5.2025 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2260 of 2023 (State Vs. Mannan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.112 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 352, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Falawada, District Meerut, on the basis of compromise deed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. The copy of the said compromise/mutual deed is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would be a futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court and will be abuse of process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.

4. Learned AGA also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

5. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

6. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order within a two week from today. 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, after hearing the informant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

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

8. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

9. Put up this case on 11.07.2025, as fresh.

10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 15.5.2025 passed by this Court, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), IIIrd Court, Meerut has submitted a compromise verification report dated 5.6.2025 along with compromise verification order dated 3.6.2025 as well as statements of both the parties. As per compromise verification order, both the parties were present and they have been identified by their respective counsel. They admitted the contents of the compromise. Accordingly, in the presence of parties, the compromise has been verified.

5. In paragraph No. 4, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has pointed out that at the time of compromise, Sadiqe alias Sajeb (accused) has filed an affidavit dated 3.6.2025 to the effect that in FIR, he has been named as Sadiqe, however, the charge sheet has been filed against him showing his name as Shajeb. He has further stated that Sadiqe and Sajeb are one and common person and he is one of the signatory of the compromise.

6. 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 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 grudge between them against each other. To quash the 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.

7. 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, the 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."

8. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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.

9. 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 wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

10. 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.

11. 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.

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

Order Date :- 23.8.2025

vinay