Allahabad High Court
Ravendra Prasad Dwivedi Alias Kallu And ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106816 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17580 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravendra Prasad Dwivedi Alias Kallu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kuldeep Kumar Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 16.07.3034 and cognizance order dated 19.09.2024 in Special Session Trial No. 504 of 2024 (State Vs. Ravendra Dwivedi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2024 under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)? S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Manikpur, District-Chitrakoot, pending in the court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Chitrakoot.
3. Present applicants, previously, have filed an application under Section 482 No. 1112 of 2025 (Ravendra Prasad Dwivedi @ Kallu and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another), assailing the criminal proceedings arising out of case crime no.106 of 2024, and sought its quashing on the basis of a compromise took place between the parties. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, co-ordinate bench of this Court, vide order dated 10.2.2025 has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified, with liberty to approach before this court again to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise. For ready reference, order dated 10.2.2025 is quoted herein below :
"1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. and Sri Kuldeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.
2. A joint statement has been made by the rival parties that they do not propose to file any response and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.
3. This application has been preferred for quashing of the proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 504 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2024, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) Dha of SC/ST Act, P.S. Manikpur, District- Chitrakoot, pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Chitrakoot.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court towards Annexure-6 at page 76 onwards, reference whereof has been made in paragraph-12 of the affidavit, so as to contend that the applicants and the opposite party no.2 have entered into the compromise. He prays that the permission be accorded to file the compromise before the court below and the same be directed to be verified and in the interregnum period, protection be accorded to the applicants.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for O.P. No. 2 have no objection and submit that let an appropriate direction be issued to the court below to verify the compromise.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties, it is hereby provided that the applicant shall appear before the court below along with the self-attested copy of the application under Section 482 CrPC, 1973 and the certified copy of the order on 28.02.2025, on which date, the court below shall put to notice the O.P. no.2 and thereafter fix a date in the first week of March, 2025 for the verification and the same be done by 25.04.2025.
7. In view of aforesaid, the application stands disposed of.
8. Till the verification is completed, the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 504 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2024, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) Dha of SC/ST Act, P.S. Manikpur, District- Chitrakoot, pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Chitrakoot, in so far as it relates to the applicants, shall remain stayed.
9. In case of default, interim protection accorded to the applicant shall stand vacated without further reference to the Court. Post outcome of the compromise, the applicant will be free to approach this Court again."
4. While entertaining the instant application, this court, vide order dated 19.05.2025, called for a report from the District - Magistrate, Chitrakoot as to whether the victim has received compensation amount or not. For ready reference, order dated 19.05.2025 is quoted herein below :
"Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
In compliance of earlier order of this Court passed in Application u/s 482 No.1112 of 2025 (Ravendra Prasad Dwivedi @ Kallu And 3 Others), though compromise has been verified by the Court concerned by order dated 05.03.2025, but nothing has been mentioned as to whether compensation, if any, received by the victim has been returned or not.
The District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, is directed to place a report by the next date as to whether any compensation was given to the victim. In case, the victim has received any compensation, the same may be recovered in accordance with law.
Put up as fresh on 08.07.2025, along with the aforesaid report, showing the name of Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate, as counsel for opposite party no.2.
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
Learned A.G.A. as well as Registrar (Compliance) shall look into compliance of this order."
5. In compliance of order dated 10.2.2025, both the parties were appeared before the court below and their compromise has been verified by learned court concerned, vide order dated 5.3.2025, with an observation that both the parties have been identified by their respective counsels and they have admitted the factum of compromise took place between the parties. Accordingly, compromise has been verified. Order dated 5.3.2025 has been endorsed at the rear side of the first page of the compromise application. Certified copy of the compromise application alongwith the order dated 5.3.2025 is filed as Annexure no.6 to this application.
6. It is apposite to mention that in compliance of order dated 19.5.2025 passed by this court, learned Magistrate has submitted his report dated 30.6.2025, with an observation that no compensation/financial assistance has been extended to the victim by Social Welfare department under the SC/ST Act, therefore, no need for recovery of the said amount. Report dated 30.6.2025 is on the record flagged as "A".
7. 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 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.
8. 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 recognises 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."
9. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.
10. 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.
11. 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 and peace will be resorted between them. 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.
12. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement/agreement inked between the parties, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.
13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 8.7.2025/vkg