Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Pratap Singh @ Abhishek Singh ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry ... on 24 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:59367
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8077 of 2025
Abhishek Pratap Singh @ Abhishek Singh And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ashutosh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
1. Sri Dileep Singh, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dileep Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding arising out of F.I.R dated 02-03-2019 Chargesheet dated 08-04-2019 under Case Crime No. 110/2019 Under Sections 427, 452, 323,504, 506 of I.P.C & Sec. 3(1)(r).(s) of SC/ST Act at P/S Bhadokhar, District Raebareli in "State v. Abhishek Pratap Singh & Ors." And also quashing of the cognizance dated 06-08-2020 passed by Special Judge. SC & ST Act, Raebareli on the basis of the Compromise Dated 12-09-2025, in the interest of Justice.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants and thereafter, the parties have amicably settled their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 12.09.2025 which has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to the instant application. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicants are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicants and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants 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 applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the aforesaid Judgment.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicants and 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 trial court 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 three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Crl. Case No. 957 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 110/2019 Under Sections 427, 452, 323,504, 506 of I.P.C & Sec. 3(1)(r).(s) of SC & ST Act at P/S Bhadokhar, District Raebareli shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned.
13. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.
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 24, 2025
Mayank
