Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 13 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63552
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3167 of 2025
Jitendra Yadav And 3 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Amit Kumar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Shubham Shukla
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
(Order on C.M. Application No. 2 of 2025-Modification)
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-applicants while pressing the application dated 06.10.2025 submits that the compromise deed had been verified vide order dated 18.08.2025. He submits that the matter has already been referred for verification of the compromise deed, thus, the order dated 26.09.2025 may be modified to the above extent.
Learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the contention aforesaid.
Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties particularly the fact that the matter was already referred to the trial court for verification of the compromise deed, which has been verified vide order dated 18.08.2025 in Crl. Appeal No. 2497 of 2025, thereafter, subsequent application has been preferred before this Court.
The application is allowed. Now, following order is being passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3167 of 2025:-
""Sri Subham Shukla, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Subham Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant appeal has been filed with the prayer to allow this appeal and set aside the charge sheet dated 09.08.2019 as well as summoning order dated 28.02.2022 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act Lucknow in Session Trial No. 417/2022 arising out from Case Crime No. 294/2019 under sections 323/504/506 I.PC. & 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, P.S- Ashiyana, District-Lucknow.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He next added that due to some misunderstanding the instant FIR was lodged and no incident has ever taken place. He next added that thereafter the parties sat together and they have settled their disputes by way of executing compromise deed and that too has been reduced in writing on 05.08.2025. Adding his arguments, he submits that now the parties have put their all disputes at rest by way of executing compromise deed and thus further criminal proceedings against the present appellants would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the appellants.
Adding his arguments, he also submits that this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 18.08.2025 has referred the matter for compromise verification in Criminal Appeal No. 2497 of 2025 and in compliance of the aforesaid order, both the parties have appeared before the trial court and the compromise deed has been verified vide order dated 15.09.2025 in presence of all concerned parties. He next added that now the matter has been compromised between the parties, and as such the proceedings of charge sheet submitted in Case Crime No. 294/2019 may be quashed.
He next added that the case of the present appellants is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021, SCC Online SC 966 and has referred paragraphs nos. 9,10,11 & 16, which are extracted hereinunder :
"9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that two questions fall for our consideration in the present appeal. First, whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a 'noncompoundable offence? If yes, then whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act ?
10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription 3 (1999) 5 SCC 238 4 (2005) 1 SCC 343 5 Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.
11. The Court in Ramgopal (Supra) further postulated that criminal proceedings involving nonheinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck postconviction, the Courts should, inter alia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held:
"19 Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations." [Emphasis Applied]
16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of the appellants and submits that the parties have entered into compromise deed and now there is no dispute in between the parties and thus the criminal proceeding against the appellants may be dropped.
On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.
Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 05.08.2025 and said compromise has been verified on 15.09.2025 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned case arising out of aforementioned Case Crime No. 294/2019.
In view of the above, as the appellants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 05.08.2025 and no grievance remains to be agitated and as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
Accordingly, the criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 09.08.2019 as well as summoning order dated 28.02.2022 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act Lucknow in Session Trial No. 417/2022 arising out from Case Crime No. 294/2019 under sections 323/504/506 I.PC. & 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, P.S- Ashiyana, District-Lucknow is hereby quashed.
The compromise deed shall be part of this order.
Consequences to be followed.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.""
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
October 13, 2025
Mayank
