Allahabad High Court
Alok Kumar Joshi And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 September, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:155389
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31375 of 2025
Alok Kumar Joshi And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ajay Sengar, Akshay Raj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Sri Lakshman Singh, learned Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 2, which is taken on record. Office to proceed accordingly and print his name as counsel for the respondent No. 2, whenever the case is listed next.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, leaned AGA representing State-respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Alok Kumar Joshi and Others), arising out of the Case Crime No. 565 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 352, 452, 506 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar, pending before the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise.
4. During pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and arrived at the compromise. Previously, the present applicants have preferred an application under Section 528 BNSS No. 17599 of 2025 (Alok Kumar Joshi and another vs. State of UP and another) challenging the summoning order and entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0565 of 2020 on the basis of the compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement, this Court, vide order dated 26.5.2025, has allowed the aforesaid application and relegated the parties before the courts below to get their compromise verified and made it open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing the proceedings on the basis of the compromise verification. For ready reference, order dated 26.5.2025 (Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit) is quoted hereinbelow:
?1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 19.12.2020 and summoning order dated 17.02.2021 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 130 of 2021 (State Vs. Alok Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0565 of 2020 under Sections 323, 352, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur on the basis of compromise pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar.
3. On 19.05.2024 this Court passed the following order:-
"While going through the order in Application u/s 482 No.2272 of 2025, it was observed that a compromise had been entered into between the parties but only concerning two individuals.
The case stems from an FIR filed by the opposite party no.2 against two named individuals and two unknown persons. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against three individuals, namely, Alok Kumar Joshi, Supreem Chaurasiya and Amar Singh. It appears that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, but the compromise pertains only to two accused persons i.e. Alok Kumar Joshi and Amar Singh. Despite this, an application u/s 482 No.2272 of 2025 was filed in Court without disclosing that the compromise was limited to just these two individuals.
Notably, Advocates Mr. Jayant Pareta and Navin Kumar Upadhyay were present during the proceedings, who have not disclosed about the aforesaid fact and have obtained an order dated 10.02.2025 from this Court, directing the parties to appear before the concerned Court for verification of the compromise. In compliance with the said order, the compromise was duly verified.
However, neither the order of this Court nor that of the concerned lower Court reflects this crucial fact that the compromise was only in relation to two of the three accused. Moreover, it was also not brought to the Court?s attention by either party?s counsel whether the victim had received any compensation or not.
Time and again, it has been observed that certain lawyers, without addressing the core issue as in the present case enter into a so-called compromise among a few parties. However, such a compromise is neither proper nor fair, as it deliberately excludes one of the parties, seemingly with the intent to extract money from the excluded party.
Learned counsel for the parties pray to withdraw this application, which cannot be permitted at this stage as the compromise deed itself is not legal as has been entered between the parties, on which the order dated 10.02.2025 has been passed by the earlier Court.
Let this matter be placed as fresh on 26.05.2025 as a first case, along with Application u/s 482 No.2272 of 2025, showing the name of Mr. Navin Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate, as counsel for the opposite party no.2."
4. In compliance of aforesaid order application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.2272 of 2025 (Alok Kumar Joshi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) has been placed alongwith present case today.
5. Perusal of the record go to show that the compromise deed is not genuine as it has been entered into between the informant and two accused persons leaving behind another accused.
6. This Court finds that the order in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.2272 of 2025 (Alok Kumar Joshi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) was obtained from co-ordinate Bench of this Court by concealing of aforesaid fact and accordingly, such compromise has been verified by court concerned vide order dated 18.04.2025.
7. Thus, order dated 10.02.2025 is set aside, directing the court concerned to verify the proper and genuine compromise deed, which is entered into between the informant and three other accused persons, if filed by the parties.
8. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?
9. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar shall also verify and send a report to this Court as to whether the opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, same has been returned or not. In case the compensation amount is not returned, the concerned District Magistrate is directed to proceed in accordance with law to recover the same and send a report accordingly before the Court concerned.
10. Learned A.G.A. as well as Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into compliance of this order.
11. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the order verifying the compromise deed and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
12. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
13. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
14. Needless to say that in case a proper compromise deed has not been filed by the parties, the Court concerned is directed to proceed in accordance with law.?
5. In compliance of order dated 26.5.2025, learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar has passed the compromise verification order dated 16.7.2025. Compromise application and certified copy of the order sheet from 17.2.2021 to 16.7.2025 have collectively been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 25.8.2025. Learned court concerned in its compromise verification order dated 16.7.2025 has observed that in compliance of the order passed by the Hon?ble High Court, statements of both the parties have been recorded and they have also been identified by their respective counsel. The contents of the compromise has been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of the compromise. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified.
6. In paragraph No. 4 of the order dated 16.7.2025, learned court concerned has returned the finding that the victim has received compensation from the government amounting to Rs. 25,000/- on 20.3.2021, which has been returned to the Government Exchequer on 19.6.2025 by DD No. 555035.
7. Moreover, in paragraph No. 5 of the order dated 16.7.2025, learned court concerned has further observed that one of the accused, namely, Supreme Chaurasia has recused to enter into the compromise on the conditions of the first informant and wants to contest the case. He was present in the court and made statement in this regard. The first information has also refused to enter into the compromise with Supreme Chaurasia. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned between the parties except Supreme Chaurasia against whom criminal proceedings will continue.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the accused, namely, Alok Kumar Joshi and Amar Singh (applicants herein) and the first informant (respondent No. 2), 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.
9. 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."
10. 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 except Supreme Chaurasia, which is duly verified by the court concerned.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties except Supreme Chaurasia 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 respondent no. 2 does not want to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.
12. 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.
13. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties except Supreme Chaurasia, duly verified by the court concerned, the present application under Section 5288 BNSS is hereby allowed against the present applicants. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed against the present applicants only, and the criminal proceedings against Supreme Chaurasia (accused) shall continue.
14. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
September 3, 2025
vinay
