Ghanshyam Jaiswal And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10835 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ghanshyam Jaiswal And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 19 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:58001
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7938 of 2025   
 
   Ghanshyam Jaiswal And Another    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. And Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Mohit Kumar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 14
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.      

1. Sri Vaibhav Mishra, Advocate has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Vaibhav Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

3. By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the Charge Sheet dated 12/03/2024 in FIR No.642/2023 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act and cognizance/ summoning order dated 22/12/2024 passed in Session Trial No. 2904/2024 which is pending before the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lucknow, on the basis of compromise dated 02/09/2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that due to some misunderstanding, the instant FIR was lodged and thereafter the parties sat together and have amicably settled their disputes by way of executing compromise deed and that too has been reduced in writing on 02.09.2025. He next added that now the parties have put their all disputes at rest by way of executing compromise deed and there is no fate of the trial, thus the criminal proceedings against the present applicant would be a futile exercise and would amount to harassment of the applicant, and as such, the entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 2904/2024, arising out of FIR No.642/2023 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act may be quashed.

5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance in the case of Ramawatar Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh,2021 SCC Online SC 966 and has referred paragraph nos. 9,10,11 & 16, which are extracted hereinunder:-

"9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that two questions fall for our consideration in the present appeal. First, whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a 'noncompoundable offence? If yes, then whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act ?

10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription 3 (1999) 5 SCC 238 4 (2005) 1 SCC 343 5 Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.

11. The Court in Ramgopal (Supra) further postulated that criminal proceedings involving nonheinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck postconviction, the Courts should, interalia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held:

"19? Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations." [Emphasis Applied]

16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."

6. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered with the ratio of the aforesaid Judgment.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties have settled their disputes through the compromise deed and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

8. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

9. Now, whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

10. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

11. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

12. For a period of two months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Session Trial No. 2904/2024, arising out of FIR No.642/2023 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, shall remain stayed so far as applicant is concerned.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has also supported the version of the counsel for the applicants and submits that the complainant-injured has no grievance to the applicants and they have settled their dispute and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

14. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same.

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

September 19, 2025

V. Sinha