Allahabad High Court
Bachchu Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 September, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:171695
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41432 of 2024
Bachchu Singh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Vishal Kumar Sonkar
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding as well as Summoning order dated 18.08.2011 of old Complaint Case No. 4087 of 2011 and new Complaint Case No. 137 of 2023 (Jagat Singh Versus Hukam Singh and others), under Sections- 342, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)10 SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bachharaun, District- Amroha, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha.
3. During pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 4.12.2024, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order dated 4.12.2024 is quoted herein below:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A.
2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding as well as Summoning order dated 18.08.2011 of old Complaint Case No. 4087 of 2011 and new Complaint Case No. 137 of 2023 (Jagat Singh Versus Hukam Singh and others), under Sections- 342, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)10 SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bachharaun, District- Amroha, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that during pendency of the criminal case, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and inked compromise on 10.10.2024 (Annexure-4). It is next submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and they have no grudges against each other, therefore, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding may be quashed on the basis of the compromise.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has nodded the submission as advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and admitted the factum of the compromise took place between the parties. He has contended that opposite party no.2 is no longer inclined to pursue the criminal proceeding against the present applicant, thus, the same may be decided on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. has no objection in referring the matter before the court below for verification of compromise.
5. In this conspectus, as above, present applicants and the opposite party no.2 are hereby directed to appear before the court below on 19/20.12.2024 along with original copy of the compromise. Learned court concerned, in turn, shall verify the compromise, as mentioned above, in presence of both the parties after recording their statement and verification report shall be submitted before this Court within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties.
6. It is made clear that at the time of verification of compromise application, learned court concerned shall also verify the fact as to whether complainant/victim has received any compensation amount from the State under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 or not. If so received, same shall be made good and deposited/returned in Government exchequer. The court concerned shall call for a report from the concerned District Social Welfare Officer as to whether received compensation amount has been deposited/returned by the victim or not.
7. List this matter on 18.03.2025.
8. Till the next date of listing, further proceeding in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed."
4. In compliance of order dated 4.12.2024, In-charge Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge(S.C./S.T. Act), Amroha has submitted the compromise verification report dated 18.2.2025. According to compromise verification report, both the parties were identified by their respective counsels and, in their presence, compromise has been verified.
5. The District Social Welfare Officer, Amroha has submitted report dated 10.2.2025 that no recommendation has been made for the financial assistance to the complainant. Therefore, no compensation has been awarded under Section S.C./S.T. Act.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants 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 recognizes 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 finally 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 23, 2025 P.P.