Kishun Swaroop And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10109 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kishun Swaroop 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:155961
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38946 of 2023   
 
   Kishun Swaroop And Another    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Deshraj Garg   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 73
 
   
 
 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.     

1. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit annexing therewith certified copy of the compromise application and compromise verification order dated 8.12.2023 today in Court, which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, learned AGA representing State-respondent No. 1 and perused the record on board.

3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 20/2010 (Dhani Ram vs. Kishun Swaroop and another), under Sections 392 & 323 I.P.C., Police Station Kuthaund, District Jalaun, pending in the Court of Special Judge (DAA Act), Jalaun at Orai on the basis of compromise dated 8.12.2023.

4. During pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 31.10.2023, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order dated 31.10.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:

"1. Short counter affidavit filed today on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

3. It is submitted that owing to property dispute between the parties, a complaint has been moved on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, however, at subsequent stage, both the brothers have amicably settled their dispute and entered into a compromise dated 6.10.2023. It is further submitted that in the light of the aforesaid compromise, instant application may be decided and entire criminal proceedings may be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has admitted the factum of compromise and urged that the instant application may be decided on the basis thereof.

5. In this conspectus, as above, both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned court below on 8/9.11.2023 and file their original compromise deed, if not already filed.

6. Learned court concerned is hereby directed to verify the compromise application in the presence of the parties after recording their statements and submit his verification report within one month from the date of appearance of the parties.

7. List this matter on 3.1.2024 along with the verification report submitted by the court concerned, if any.

8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants."

5. In compliance of the order dated 31.10.2023, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (DAA Act), Jalaun at Orai has submitted a compromise verification report dated 8.12.2023 along with compromise verification order dated 8.12.2023. As per compromise verification order, both the parties were identified by their respective counsel. The contents of the compromise have been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise. Accordingly, the 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 grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as 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, 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. 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 settlement/agreement inked between the parties, 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 3, 2025

vinay