Usman And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2088 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Usman And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 July, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117246
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9346 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Usman And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Gupta
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Soni,Shubham Maurya
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA representing State-respondent no. 1 and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to proceed accordingly.

3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 240 of 2021 (Old No. 1441 of 2020), (State Vs. Usman and others) and cognizance order dated 19.08.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi along with chargesheet dated 08.06.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2020, under Sections 308, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Baniather, District Sambhal

4. During pendency of the proceedings, 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 01.04.2025, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified and granted liberty to file the compromise verification proceedings before this Court through supplementary affidavit. For ready reference, order dated 01.04.2025 is quoted hereinbelow:

"Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that parties settled their dispute arising out of offence punishable under Sections 308, 323, 352, 504, 506 of I.P.C. on the basis of compromise dated 17.02.2025. Certified copy of compromise is annexure-9 to the affidavit of this application. It is further submitted that both the parties has sustained injuries and the cross case is pending against another party under Sections 308, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the court concerned for verification of compromise within three weeks from today.

Court concerned is directed to verify the same.

Applicants are directed to file supplementary affidavit annexing certified copy of the compromise as well as proceedings of verification of compromise.

Connect with Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 9054 of 2025 and put up this case on 11.07.2025

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Case No. 240 of 2021 (Old No. 1441 of 2020) (State vs. Usman and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2020, P.S. Banjiather, District Sambhal shall remain stayed against the applicants."

5. In compliance of the order dated 01.04.2025, learned counsel for the applicant has filed copy of supplementary affidavit along with certified copy of the compromise dated 08.04.2025, certified copy of the affidavit of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Certified copy of the order dated 08.04.2025 and compromise verification endorsement dated 08.04.2025 which has been endorsed is on the rear side of first page of the compromise. As per compromise verification order dated 08.04.2025, parties have filed the compromise on the same day i.e. 08.04.2025 and they have been identified by their respective counsel. Contents of the compromise have been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise. Accordingly, in presence of the parties, compromise has been verified in compliance of the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by this Court.

6. 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.

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, 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. 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 applicant 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 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.

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

Order Date :- 18.7.2025

Aiman