Allahabad High Court

Pappu And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 July, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111342
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17289 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Pappu And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Kant Tripathi,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 05.12.2023 in Special Complaint No.90 of 2023 (Satendra Versus Pappu and Another) under Sections 323, 504, 406, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura as well as passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Mathura, pending before Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Mathura.

3. It is submitted that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved by respondent no.2 against the present applicants levelling allegation of criminal breach of trust, hurt, criminal intimidation and intentional insult as well as allegation under Section 3(1)(da), (dha) of S.C./S.T. Act. Said application was treated as complaint and summoning order dated 05.12.203 has been passed against the present applicants.

4. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 16.05.2025, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. Simultaneously, learned District Magistrate was directed to verify and send a report to this Court as to whether opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not. For ready reference, order dated 16.05.2025 is quoted herein below :-

"Mr. Chandra Kant Tripathi, Advocate, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

Heard Mr. Devesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Chandra Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 05.12.2023 as well as proceedings of Special Complaint No.90 of 2023 (Satendra vs. Pappu & Another), under Sections 323, 504, 406, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(r)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Mathura, on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicants have approached this Court by means of filing Criminal Appeal No.234/2024 challenging the summoning order and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the aforesaid appeal vide order dated 23.08.2024. Pursuant to the directions in the aforesaid appeal, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. Copy of the said compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-7 to this application, wherein it has been mentioned that the parties do not want to proceed with the case. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would futile exercise and sheer wastage of time of the Court and will be an 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.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

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.

In view of the above, 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. 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?

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

Put up this case on 11.07.2025, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Chandra Kant Tripathi, Advocate, as counsel for opposite party no.2.

Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Mathura 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, the 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.

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

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

5. In pursuance of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court, Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Mathura has submitted the compromise verification report dated 26.06.2025 along with copy of the compromise verification order dated 24.06.2025 and statement of complainant as well as the accused. As per compromise verification order, compromise application (paper no.14-Ka) has been verified in presence of both the parties who have been identified by their respective counsels. Accordingly, compromise has been verified. Learned court concerned has observed in the order dated 24.06.2025 that complainant Satendra has filed affidavit to the effect that he has not received any compensation from the government department. Certified copy of the order dated 24.06.2025 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.06.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant matter is arising out of complaint, therefore, no compensation has been given to the victim/complainant under the S.C./S.T Act.

7. It is further 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 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 recognizes 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 finally 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 wants to prosecute the present case against the applicant 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 528 B.N.S.S. 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 :- 11.7.2025