HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12130 of 2024 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1.Sri Mohaammad Sakir, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed supplementary affidavit annexing the verification report of the settlement of compromise between the parties dated 2.9.2025 which is taken on record. 2.Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The parties before this Court had made a request that they have entered into a compromise in this matter and have settled all the disputes between them and now they do not want to proceed with this matter. It is further submitted that in compliance of the order of this court dated 4.08.2025, the compromise has been verified by the Special Judge SC/ST Act Bareilly vide order dated 2.9.2025. 4. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Session Case no. 2923 of 2021, (State Vs. Kuldeep @ Banti) case Crime no. 58 of 2021, under Section 452, 354, 323, 504, 506, 420 IPC and 3 (2) (Va), 3 (1) (da), 3 (1) (dha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Aligang, Bareilly pending in the Court of Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Bareilly including charge sheet dated 6.5.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 9.11.2021 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act) Bareilly on the basis of compromise dated 26.11.2024 entered between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before this Court that the compromise entered into between the parties has been made without any coercion or undue influence upon the informant of this case and is a result of free will and consent of the parties. 6. It appears from perusal of the record that the present case is having a nature of purely private dispute and prima facie it also appears that the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste. Further, the compromise between the parties is the result of free will and consent of the informant-opposite party no. 2 without any Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Neeraj Kumar Yadav, Shailendra Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mohammad Sakir Kuldeep Alias Banti .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) undue influence. 7. Whether a compromise can be verified and accepted in a case relating to an offence under SC/ST Act has been answered in Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. (2022) 13 SCC 635. Paragraph no. 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- "17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C." 9. It is further held in paragraph no. 19 of the said judgment which is quoted herein under:- "19. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case" 7. A perusal of the full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan And Others vs State Of U.P And Another 2022 (8) ADJ 691 reveals that a matter under the SC/ST Act may be compounded in a criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act and there is no need to take recourse of U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for the same. 8. In view of that, this Court finds that since the parties have entered into compromise which has already been verified by the trial court. 9. Hence, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case emanating from the impugned order taking cognizance on charge sheet dated 6.5.2021 summoning the appellant under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506, 420 IPC and Section 3(2) (Va), 3 (1) (da), 3 (1) (dha) of SC/St Act in Case Crime No. 58 of 2021, P.S. Aliganj, District Bareilly registered as Session Case No. 2923 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bareilly is hereby quashed and the present criminal appeal is CRLA No. 12130 of 2024 2 disposed of in terms of compromise entered into by both the parties. October 13, 2025 A. CRLA No. 12130 of 2024 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad