Sonu Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2023 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sonu Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 July, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116261
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28563 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sonu Yadav And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Yadav,Ramesh Chandra Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the entire proceedings as well charge sheet No. 23/2021, dated 05.02.2022, cognizance/summoning order dated 06.04.2023 passed by 7th Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in Criminal Case No. 17080/2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 0235/2021, U/s- 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Dullahpur, District Ghazipur, pending in the court of 7th Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur on the basis of compromise deed dated 27.6.2023.

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 26.9.2023, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, orders dated 26.9.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:

"1. Sri Vivek Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri R.C. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant is present.

2. It has been stated that instant application is arising out of matrimonial discord. Both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into compromise. The compromise application has been filed before the trial court, which has been annexed as annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of instant application. It is further submitted that the instant application may be decided on the basis of said compromise.

3. In this conspectus, as above, learned trial court before whom the compromise application have been filed is hereby directed to verify the compromise application in the presence of the parties after recording their statements and submit his verification report within one month from the date of appearance of the parties, who are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned on 4.10.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has assured that he will give notice in writing to opposite party No. 2 apprising about the order of the date.

5. List this matter on 8.11.2023 along with the verification report submitted by the court concerned, if any.

6. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. "

4. In pursuance of the order dated 26.09.2023, learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate-02 Gazipur has submitted the compromise verification report dated 11.10.2023 along with the compromise application and compromise verification order dated 09.10.2023 which has been endorsed at the rear side of the first page of the compromise. As per compromise verification order, both the parties appeared before the court below and were identified by their respective counsels. The contents of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have admitted the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified. For ready reference report dated 11.10.2023 and order dated 09.10.2023 are quoted herein below:

"11.10.2023

?????,

??????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??????? ???? 482 ?????? 28563/2023 ???? ???? ? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???????? 26.09.2023 ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? 17080/2023 ????? ?????? 235/2021 ???? 498?,323,504,506 ????????? ? 3/4 ?????????? ???? ????????? ???? ??????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ???

????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ?? ???, ????????? ????? ???????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????????? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ???

????"

"09.10.2023

?? ?? ???????? ?? ?: ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ???????? ????????? ????? ??? ?????????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ? ????? ???? ???????? ???????? ??????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ????????? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ????????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????-???? ?????????/?????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????"

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. 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.

9. 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.

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

Order Date :- 17.7.2025

Sumit K.