Rajesh Yadav And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10032 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajesh Yadav And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 September, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:153913
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33091 of 2025   
 
   Rajesh Yadav And 6 Others    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Maneesh Kumar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 73
 
   
 
 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.       

1. Sri Vivek Pandey, learned Advocate, has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2, today in Court, which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly and print his name as the counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash the entire proceeding including in Special Trial No. 64/2013 (State versus Rajesh Yadav and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 89/2012 under Sections 147, 323/ 149, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jangipur, District- Ghazipur, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ghazipur.

4. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings both the parties were arrived at compromise and settled their dispute out of the court. Previously, present applicants have moved an Application U/S 528 B BNSS No.6963 of 2025 assailing the criminal proceedings with an averment that both the parties were arrived at compromise. Having considered the compromise between the parties, this court, vide order dated 4.3.2025 (Annexure no.4), has allowed the aforesaid application U/S 528 BNSS and relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. Both the parties were granted liberty, as well, to approach before this court again to assail the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise verification. For ready reference, the order dated 4.3.2025 is quoted hereinbelow :-

"1. Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Arvind Singh, on behalf of O.P. No.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jyoti Singh, learned A.G.A. and Sri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.

3. This is an application under Section 482 CrPC preferred by the applicants for quashing proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 64/2013 (State versus Rajesh Yadav and Others) under sections: 323, 504, 506, 147 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(da) of SC/ST Act, Police Station, Jangipur, District Ghazipur pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ghazipur on the basis of compromise dated 11.9.2024 filed by the parties vide application 106 Ba to the aforesaid case and also to quash the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 64/2013 (State versus Rajesh Yadav and Others) under sections 323, 504, 506, 147 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(da) of SC/ST Act

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though an FIR being Case Crime No.89 of 2012 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC read with Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act stood lodged on 17.03.2011, however, the parties have also entered into compromise, however, a charge sheet came to be submitted under Sections 147, 323/149, 504, 506 IPC read with Sections 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however, the compromise application stood filed before the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ghazipur, then the same stood rejected on 24.10.2024 on the ground that the same cannot be compounded under Section 320 of CrPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the parties have entered into compromise, and now there remains nothing to be further proceeded with, then the rejection order is bad.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the O.P. No.2 submit that this Court in exercise of powers under Section 528 of BNSS has the power to quash the proceeding. He seeks to rely upon the decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the compromise needs to be verified. Accordingly the order dated 24.10.2024 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ghazipur in S.T. No.64 of 2013 is set aside.

7. The court below is directed to institute proceedings for compromise. For the said purpose parties shall appear before the court below on 17.03.2025. The court below shall undertake proceeding for verifying the compromise and the same shall be concluded by 23.05.2025.

8. In view of aforesaid, the application stands disposed of.

9. Till the verification is done in the compromise application so submitted by the parties, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 64/2013 (State versus Rajesh Yadav and Others) under sections: 323, 504, 506, 147 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(da) of SC/ST Act, Police Station, Jangipur, District Ghazipur pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ghazipur. The protection accorded to the applicants is only available subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. The parties are free to take legal recourse post outcome of the compromise.

10. The issue of deposit of the compensation by the victim shall also be looked into while obtaining report from concerned District Social Welfare Officer."

5. In compliance of the order dated 4.3.2025, passed by this court, Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Ghazipur has passed the compromise verification order dated 13.5.2025 with an observation that both the parties including the injured appeared before the court below and they have been identified by their respective counsel. The contents of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have admitted the factum of compromise and, in their presence, compromise has been verified.

6. 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 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 grudge between them against each other. To quash the 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.

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, the 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. for the State 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 applicants 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 compromise took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, 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.

(Dinesh Pathak,J.)

September 2, 2025

vkg