Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44256 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6120 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Javed @ Javed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Ojha,Shohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant and a short counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ram Raj Ojha, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Diwaker Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Durga Prasad Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 3. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has sought quashing of the chargesheet dated 10.02.20211 arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2011, under Section 354, 506 I.P.C and 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Harchandpur, District Raebareli along with the proceedings of S.T. No. 458 of 2012, which is pending in the Court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T., Raebareli, on the ground that the parties have entered into a settlement. 4. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of an F.I.R lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 04.02.2011 stating that while she was working in a field on 06.10.2011, the applicant molested her and insulted her. When she shouted, several persons came there and the applicant went away while threatening her. 5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet against the applicant on 10.02.2011 for commission of offences under Section 354, 506 and Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Act. 6. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement dated 07.07.2025, wherein it is stated that the parties have mutually resolved their disputes and want closure of the proceedings on the basis of compromise. 7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith the statements of the informant and two other prosecution witnesses recorded by the trial court. During her cross-examination, the complainant/informant (P.W.1) stated that as soon as the applicant had caught hold of her hand, she has shouted and the applicant fell down. The independent witnesses denied having witnessed the incident. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed a short counter affidavit accepting the compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of compromise. She has stated in the short counter affidavit that she is leading a happy married life with her husband and she does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicant. 9. In Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: - "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." 10. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar (supra), it appears that although the F.I.R contains a mention of the offence under Section SC/ST Act, there is no allegation that the offence was committed because of the caste of the complainant; in her cross-examination, the complainant merely stated that the applicant had caught hold of her hand and immediately she shouted and the applicant fell down; she did not levelled any allegation and the independent witnesses have not supported the allegations. 11. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of the criminal proceedings would not yield any other object except of persecution of the application as well as of the complainant and it will be prejudicial to the happy married life of the complainant also. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the charge sheet dated 10.02.20211 arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2011, under Section 354, 506 I.P.C and 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Harchandpur, District Raebareli along with the proceedings of S.T. No. 458 of 2012, is hereby quashed. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench