Ravi Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10260 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ravi Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 September, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:159057
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1985 of 2024   
 
   Ravi Yadav    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Kamal Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Ashok Kumar Mishra, G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 73
 
   
 
 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.       

1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a copy of supplementary affidavit along with certified copy of the compromise and compromise verification order dated 19.03.2024 and a copy of compromise application, today in court, which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet no. 01 of 2022 dated 29.09.2023 submitted in S.T. No. 14 of 2023 (State Vs. Ravi Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2022, u/s 452, 354, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Ait, District- Jalaun as well as cognizance order dated 05.04.2023 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jalaun at Orai, in S.T. No. 14 of 2023 (State Vs. Ravi Yadav) pending in the court of Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jalaun at Orai.

4. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 22.02.2024, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order date 22.02.2024 passed by this Court is quoted herein below:

"Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate has filed a short counter affidavit alongwith his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, let it be kept on record.

Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 are present.

It is submitted by both the counsels that the parties have arrived at a compromise. The compromise deed is appended at page-49 of the paper book. As some of the sections involved are non-compoundable, hence, a direction is sought for the trial court to verify their compromise deed.

As the dispute is personal and the compromise between the parties would not affect the society adversely, hence, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court within 15 days from today alongwith their original compromise deed. If the parties appear before the trial court within the time stipulated alongwith their original compromise deed, the trial court shall verify the said compromise deed, pass a verification order thereon and transmit the certified copy of the verified compromise deed alongwith the certified copy of the verification order passed thereon, to this Court before the date fixed.

A report be summoned from the District Magistrate concerned through the Registrar General, High Court Allahabad as to how much amount was received by the opposite party no.2/ victim as compensation from the State Government with regard to the present case.

Opposite party no.2 is directed to deposit the amount, if any, received by her and place its receipt before the Court on the date fixed.

List on 22.03.2024 in the additional cause list.

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in S.T. No.14 of 2023 (State vs. Ravi Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.88 of 2022, under Sections 452, 354, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2) (va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Ait, District- Jalaun, pending in the court of Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jalaun at Orai."

5. In compliance of the order dated 22.02.2024, learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Jalaun at Orai has submitted its compromise verification report dated 20.03.2024 along with the copy of compromise verification order dated 19.03.2024, wherein learned court concerned has observed that both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The contents of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have admitted the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress. Their statements were also recorded and, in presence of both the parties, the compromise (Paper No. 27-Ka) has been verified. In its report dated 20.03.2024, learned court concerned has observed that the victim has received compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- under the S.C./S.T. Act; however, said amount has been returned in the government exchequer through challan. Certified copy of the challan, certified copy of the compromise application and certified copy of the compromise verification order dated 19.03.2024, which has been endorsed on the rear side of second page of the compromise, are filed as Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to the supplementary affidavit filed today.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal 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 applicant 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 want 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 482 Cr.P.C. 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 8, 2025

Sumit K.