[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Raghvendra Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:70669
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1537 of 2021
Raghvendra Singh And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Hare Krishna Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Yogesh Kumar Tiwari
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Hare Krishna Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by applicant to quash the charge sheet dated 28.11.2018 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 1008 of 2019 (State Vs. Raghvendra Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 370 of 2018, under Sections 452, 325, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station- Chirgaon, District- Jhansi, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.
3. It is jointly contended by the learned counsel for the parties that the accused-applicant and opposite party no.2 as well as injured are the neighbours. There was some altercation between the two pertaining to plucking of mangoes. There was a cross fight between the two, which led to the injuries on both the sides. The F.I.R. was lodged through an application u/s 156(3) CrPC on 02.08.2018. After investigation, the charge sheet is submitted against the accused-applicant alone. There is a compromise at page no.41 of the application. The learned counsel submits that the injured is also ready for the compromise as all are of same vicinity and do not want to continue the proceedings of the criminal case anymore.
4. Learned AGA for the State submits no objection if the parties approach trial court to file compromise in the given circumstances.
5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has considered the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court vis a vis Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for considering the compromise entered into the parties and in a non compoundable case and observed that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of Court. The relevant paragraph 61, which reflects the birds eye view of the case in which the High Court ought to exercise the power to quash the proceedings is reiterated underneath:-
".......the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding....."
6. Whether the parties (informant, victim and accused) have entered into compromise, can best be adjudicated by the trial court. As such, the parties may appear before the trial court and file the compromise entered into between the parties within thirty days, which shall be verified by the trial court. The trial court shall place the original in its record.
7. No compromise shall be entertained by the trial court if the informant, victim and accused are not signatories and appear before the court for its verification. In case of exigency, the trial court shall apply its mind and pass appropriate order.
8. For a period of sixty days, the proceedings of the trial court shall be kept in abeyance, if the compromise is filed and verified within stipulated period, otherwise, the trial court shall continue with the trial.
9. All the parties, who files compromise and get it verified shall then file a joint application invoking inherent power of this Court to quash the criminal proceeding.
10. In view of the above, the application under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC is accordingly disposed of.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
April 2, 2026
Shivangi
