Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Salman vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 March, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37387
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1036 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohd. Salman
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dharm Pal Yadav,G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Dharm Pal Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. S.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash and stay the N.B.W. order dated 04.11.2020 in Session Trial No.157 of 2020 (State vs. Salman), arising out of Case Crime No.374 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST, Allahabad, on the basis of compromise.
On 27.11.2024, the following order was passed :-
"1. Compromise affidavit is kept on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying to quash the charge-sheet in Session Trial No. 157 of 2020 (State Vs. Salman) arising out of Case Crime No. 374 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District Prayagraj pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in compromise affidavit filed on 18.10.2022, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Copy of the said compromise inked between the parties has been filed as Annexure-1 to the compromise affidavit. It is next submitted that in changed scenario, both the parties have buried the hatchet, therefore, to observe peace and tranquility, instant criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the compromise. Continuation of the criminal proceeding would emcompasse prejudice and oppression to the parties.
5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has nodded the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and admitted the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties, and contended that opposite party no. 2 is no longer inclined to pursue the criminal proceedings against the present applicants. Therefore, criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
6. In this conspectus, as above, having regard to the amicable settlement took place between the parties, in my considered opinion, there is no justification to keep the parties indulge in criminal proceedings. Therefore, both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned on 16/17.12.2024 along with the original copy of the compromise. Learned court concerned, after receiving the said compromise, shall verify the same in presence of both the parties after recording their statements and submit a compromise verification report before this Court within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties.
7. List this matter on 13.03.2025 along with the compromise verification report submitted/sent by the court below, if any.
8. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Session Trial No. 157 of 2020 (State Vs. Salman) arising out of Case Crime No. 374 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District Prayagraj pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad, shall remain stayed.
9. It is made clear that at the time of submitting the verification report, learned court concerned shall also verify the fact as to whether any compensation amount has been received by the victim under Rule 18 of SC/ST Rules, 1995 or not? In case, any compensation amount has been received same shall be make good, and received amount shall be deposited in the treasury of the Government/District Social Welfare Office. In this respect, learned court concerned shall call for a report from the authorities concerned as to whether received compensation amount has been deposited/returned by the victim or not."
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 27.11.2024, compromise verification report from learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Prayagraj is placed on record as is evident from office report dated 11.03.2025. The letter of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Prayagraj dated 15.01.2025 is placed on record along with the compromise deed, statement of parties and a letter from District Social Welfare Officer, Prayagraj as well as the order dated 03.01.2025 vide which the compromise between the parties has been verified in the presence of both the parties along with their respective counsels. It has been mentioned in the report of District Social Welfare Officer that no compensation has been awarded to the victim under SC/ST Act and the same has also been stated before the Court concerned while verifying the compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,
(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,
(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the entire proceeding of Session Trial No.157 of 2020 (State vs. Salman), arising out of Case Crime No.374 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Prayagraj, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As per the practice, number of frivolous cases are being filed under the special act and after receiving compensation, the parties enter into compromise by taking money from the alleged accused persons whom they have falsely implicated. The Court cannot entertain such practice. Thus, it is very clear that the concerned District Magistrate shall take appropriate action in case the compensation amount is not deposited and place the report before the Registrar General, The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Allahabad.
The Registrar (Compliance) shall look into the compliance of the aforesaid order.
In case the verification has been done by playing fraud, the opposite party no.2 has liberty to approach this Court by filing fresh application.
A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 17.3.2025
Kalp Nath Singh
