DESHRAJ AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
NA528/540/2025 · 2025-07-17
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 143406 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 143406 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41455 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 540 of 2025 Applicant :- Deshraj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari,Virend Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar Verma Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Avinash Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Hansraj Verma, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Surendra Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, who has filed a short counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, which is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 392/2025, pending before the Court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow, arising out of FIR/ Case Crime No. 279/2024, U/S. 117,131,115(2), 324,351,352 B.N.S. & 3(1)(D),3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act (State Vs. Ravin Yadav and others), Police Station- Bijnor, District- Lucknow, on the basis of compromise dated 28.04.2025 entered into between the parties. 3. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 05.10.2024 stating that the co-accused persons had abused and assaulted him on 05.10.2024 causing serious injuries to him. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused-persons on 22.12.2024 and the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submit that even before the commencement of trial, the parties have entered into a compromise dated 28.04.2025 stating that the disputes between the parties stands resolved and they are living amicably. Compromise entered into between the parties have been placed on record as Annexure-3 to the application. The parties have confirmed the terms of the compromise. In the short counter affidavit filed today, the opposite party No. 2 has accepted the compromise supporting the prayer for quashing of the impugned proceedings against the applicants are quashed . 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. In the case of Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
17.
........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 482CrPC."
7. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and they have amicably resolved the same, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. 8. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 392/2025, pending before the Court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow, arising out of FIR/ Case Crime No.
279/2024, U/S. 117,131,115(2), 324,351,352 B.N.S. & 3(1) (D),3(1)(Dha),3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act (State Vs. Ravin Yadav and others), Police Station- Bijnor, District- Lucknow, are quashed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 (Manoj K.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench