Allahabad High Court
Jay Prakash Vishwakarma And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:156589
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47573 of 2014
Jay Prakash Vishwakarma And Anr
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Manav Chaurasia, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajay Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of learned counsel for the applicant learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer to quashthe charge sheet No.155 of 2013 dated 17.10.2013 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.115 of 2014 (State Vs. Ram Prakash Vishwakarma and others), arising out of Case Crime No.198 of 2013, under Sections 307, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and 3/31 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Paschin Sharira, District Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kaushambi.
3. The matter is a matrimonial in nature.
4. Office report dated 09.07.2025 reveals that the notice was served on opposite party no.2 but no one has appeared on his behalf.
5. Learned counsel appears for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court towards page no.10 of the supplementary affidavit showing that there is settlement between husband and wife (opposite party no.2) through mediation. The mediation report is dated 08.05.2019.
6. In paragraph 6(f) of the Mediation Agreement, it is agreed that both the parties will withdraw their cases filed against each other. It is in this context that the parties have filed compromise on 16.05.2023.
7. Learned A.G.A. appears for the State.
8. As the matrimonial case is disposed of in terms of compromise in mediation and there is a specific application moved before the trial court to register the compromise but the offence in the trial is not compoundable, as there is no order of the trial court.
9. This Court is of the view that the matrimonial case is ended compromise through mediation and parties have buried the hatchet.
10. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:-
(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675.
(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303.
(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.
(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.
(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.
11. Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER, decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows: -
i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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 recognizes 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 complaint 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 the 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 appropriately 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
12. Taking the help of these guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly is a private dispute. Thus the proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.
13. The present 482 application stands allowed.
14. Let copy of this order may be transmitted to the concerned court within twenty days.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 4, 2025
Mini
