HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38793 of 2024 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including charge-sheet dated 25.6.2020 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 2.12.2020 in Criminal Case No.1403 of 2020 (State vs. Mahedra Pal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 336, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Cantt. District Bareilly pending before the 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 18.11.2024, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order dated 18.11.2024 is quoted herein below :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding as well as Charge sheet dated 25.06.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 02.12.2020 in Criminal Case No. 1403 of 2020 (State Versus Mahendra Pal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 241 of 2020, under Sections- 147, 148, 323, 325, 336, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Cantt., District- Bareilly, pending in the Court of Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ali Hasan, Istiyaq Ali Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Chandra Ajeet And 7 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 3. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and inked compromise dated 19.7.2024. All the accused as well as first informant have filed their personal affidavit, copy of the compromise and affidavit of all the parties are filed collectively as Annexure no.6. Aforesaid compromise is pending consideration before the court below. It is next submitted that in changed circumstances 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 to observe peace and tranquility between the parties. 4. 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, the learned court concerned before whom the compromise application has been filed is hereby directed to verify the compromise in the presence of both the parties after recording their statements and submit a verification report within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties, who are hereby directed to appear before the court below on 4/5.12.2024. 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 27.02.2025 along with verification report submitted by the court concerned, if any. 8. On the next date fixed, opposite party no.2 shall appear through counsel to put his version, if any. 9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case. " 4. In compliance of the order dated 18.11.2024, learned Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Bareilly has submitted the compromise verification report dated 25.2.2025 alongwith compromise verification order dated A482 No. 38793 of 2024 2 25.2.2025 and copy of the compromise application. As per the compromise verification report/order, both the parties have appeared and they have been identified by their respective counsel. In presence of the parties, the compromise has been verified. 5. Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly has submitted subsequent report dated 19.8.2025 in compliance of order dated 5.8.2025 to the effect that as per the report dated 28.1.2025 submitted by District Social Welfare Officer, Bareilly, the complainant has returned the compensation amount through DD No.029754 dated 16.1.2025 of the State Bank of India. 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 A482 No. 38793 of 2024 3 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 A482 No. 38793 of 2024 4 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. September 16, 2025 P.P. A482 No. 38793 of 2024 5 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad