Allahabad High Court
Akram Husain And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125388 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44960 of 2023 Applicant :- Akram Husain And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard Sri Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Virendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record on Board.
2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge-sheet dated 07.02.2023 as well as entire proceedings in Case No. 1201 of 2023 (State vs. Akram Husain and Others) arising out of Crime No. 704 of 2022 under Sections 147, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & Section 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Fareedpur, District Bareilly, pending before the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T., Act, Bareilly.
3. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 08.12.2023, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. Simultaneously, learned District Magistrate was directed to verify and send a report to this Court as to whether opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not. For ready reference, order dated 08.12.2023 is quoted herein below :-
"Learned counsel for applicants refers to Annexure No.3 to contend that a compromise has been effected between the parties and prays for quashing of the criminal proceedings of Case No. 1201 of 2023, titled State Vs. Akram Husain and others, under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 704 of 2022, under Sections 147, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Fareedpur, District Bareilly.
At this stage, Mr. Virendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and has filed short counter affidavit along with power of attorney, who states that indeed the parties have settled the dispute.
Accordingly, the private parties are directed to appear before the trial court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly on or before 05.01.2024 for recording their statements with regard to compromise/settlement. Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:-
(i) Number of persons arrayed as accused in F.I.R.
(ii) If, any accused has been declared as proclaimed offender/ person.
(iii) Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence ?
(iv) Whether the accused persons are involved in any other case?
(v) The trial court is also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the F.I.R.
A copy of the report be also sent through fax to the Registrar Judicial of this Court.
Put up this case as fresh on 11.1.2024. "
4. In pursuance of the order dated 08.12.2023, learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly, has submitted the compromise verification report dated 15.03.2024 alongwith compromise verification order dated 14.03.2024. As per compromise verification report, both the parties have appeared before the court below along with compromise application and have been identified by their respective counsels. They have admitted the conditions of the compromise. In their presence, compromise application (paper no. 35-Ka) has been verified.
5. In compliance of the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by this Court, learned District Magistrate, Bareilly, has submitted his report dated 03.04.2024 to the effect that no compensation/financial aid has been given to the victim under the SC/ST Act. Report dated 03.04.2024 is on record as flag B.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant 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 wants to prosecute the present case against the applicant 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.
Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Vibha Singh