Brajlal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2009 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Brajlal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 17 July, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116013
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19088 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Brajlal And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ganga Bhushan Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Ganga Bhushan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ankit Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2.The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the entire proceeding of the Special Trial No. 710 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Brajlal and others), under Sections 323, 324, 34, 504 IPC and Section 3(1) Da and 3(1) Dha of the SC/ST Act, Police Staion Gursarai, District Jhansi pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, District Jhansi including the Charge Sheet No. 101 of 2018 dated 11.06.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 82 of 2018, Police Station Gursarai, District Jhansi.

3. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 27.05.2025, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. Simultaneously, the District Magistrate is directed to submit a report with regard to the receiving of compensation under SC/ST Act, if any. For ready reference, the order dated 27.05.2025 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 has filed counter affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

Heard Mr. Ganga Bhushan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsels for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 11.06.2018 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No.710 of 2018 (State of UP vs. Brajlal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.82 of 2018, under Sections 323, 324, 34, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)Da and 3(1)Dha of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.-Gursarai, District-Jhansi, on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of Court and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In this regard, copy of compromise deed has been moved before this Court mentioning that the parties do not want to proceed with the case, which is annexed as Annexure No.6 to this application. 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., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

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?

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 17.07.2025, as fresh.

Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Jhansi 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 action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

Certified copy of the compromise deed may be returned to the learned counsel for the applicants after retaining the photo-copy of the same."

4. In compliance of order dated 27.05.2025, learned in-charge Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi has submitted compromise verification report dated 16.06.2025 along with the copy of the compromise, compromise verification order dated 12.06.2025 and statements of both the parties.

5. As per compromise verification report, both the parties were appeared before the court below and they have been identified by their respective counsel. Contents of the compromise (paper no. 45A/1 to 45A/4) have been spelled out to the parties, who have admitted factum of compromise. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.

6. District Magistrate has submitted report dated 28.06.2025, in compliance of order dated 27.05.205 to the effect that victim has returned the compensation amount in the Government Exchequer through challan. Photo copy of the challan dated 26.06.2025 has been appended with the report dated 28.06.2025.

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 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 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 settlement/agreement inked between the parties, the present application under Section 528 BNSS 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 :- 17.7.2025

Aiman