Allahabad High Court
Devendra @ Babloo Dubey And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:174005
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2882 of 2017
Devendra @ Babloo Dubey And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Aravind Kumar Tripathi, Arun Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Ram Badan Maurya
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet bearing No. 0245 of 2016 dated 17.11.2016 submitted in Case Crime No. 510 of 2016 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Bilhaur, District-Kanpur Nagar and also be pleased to quash the proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 510 of 2016 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Bilhaur, District-Kanpur Nagar.
Pursuant to the order dated 11.05.2023, a report dated 06.07.2023 has been forwarded by Additional District and Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Kanpur Dehat stating that the parties have amicably settled their dispute through compromise dated 11.09.2019. The said compromise also indicates that the first informant has not received any compensation amount.
Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that opposite party No. 2 has willingly entered into a settlement and not under duress or threat and is not interested in pursuing the matter pending in the Trial Court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the applicants and, therefore, the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties.
Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. have no objection if the impugned proceeding pending against the applicants is quashed.
Recently, the law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, in the matters under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635 decided on 25.10.2021 has held that: "the Court has to be mindful of the fact that the 1989 Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities; as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. However, when such offence is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence not 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. Further, in such cases, the Court ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench Judgment in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012)10 SCC 303, has held that "But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that "even in the non-compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases."
Both the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending amongst them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the laws as cited above, the present case is a good case for exercise of power by the Court to quash summoning order as well as entire proceedings.
The present application for quashing filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. comes within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019 dated 02.09.2025.
The dispute appears to be purely civil in nature that has been mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer.
Therefore, the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 510 of 2016 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Bilhaur, District-Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, allowed.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
September 25, 2025
Shivani
