Allahabad High Court
Mohd Kamil And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 May, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93744
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17776 of 2025
Applicant :- Mohd Kamil And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mohd. Abrar Khan,G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Mohd. Abrar Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.10 of 2024 (Dukhi Lal vs. Mohd. Kamil and Others), under Sections 307, 504, 147, 148 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)5, 3(1) Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station- Karari, District- Kaushambi, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi, on the basis of compromise dated 16.01.2025.
Earlier the applicants had approached this Court by means of filing Application U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4625 of 2025 (Mohd. Kamil And 5 Others vs. State Of U.P. And Another) and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.02.2025 had directed the parties to appear before the court concerned for verification of the compromise. Though, the compromise was verified but certified copy of the order was not placed on record, therefore, on 19.05.2025, the following order was passed :-
"Mr. Mohd. Abrar Khan, 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.
Earlier the applicants have approached this Court by means of filing Application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. No.4625 of 2025 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.02.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise.
In compliance of the aforesaid order the Court concerned has verified the compromise by order dated 24.03.2025, which is placed at page-105 of this application. The aforesaid verification order does not appear to be certified copy.
Learned counsel for the parties are directed to place certified copy of the order dated 24.03.2025 by the next date.
Put up as fresh on 30.05.2025 showing the name Mr. Mohd. Abrar Khan, Advocate, as counsel for opposite party no.2."
The certified copy of the order dated 24.03.2025 has been placed on page no.7 of the supplementary affidavit filed today. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants that the compromise deed was placed before the court concerned, which has been verified vide order dated 24.03.2025, certified copy of the same is placed on the last page of compromise deed annexed on page no.105 of this application which is as follows:-
"This compromise deed is verified by this court in compliance of the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 18.02.2025, in presence of both the parties. It is informed by District Social Welfare Officer vide report dated 20.03.2025 that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with the treasury. No other amount is due."
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below and the compensation amount has also been returned, 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 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, he has 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 criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.10 of 2024 (Dukhi Lal vs. Mohd. Kamil and Others), under Sections 307, 504, 147, 148 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)5, 3(1) Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station- Karari, District- Kaushambi, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 30.5.2025
Kalp Nath Singh
