HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8841 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ravikant Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. 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 26.9.2025 the compromise has been verified by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Prayagraj vide order dated 15.10.2025. Further record discloses that verification report dated 16.10.2025 has also been received on record. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case emanating from the impugned summoning order dated 20.12.2021, order dated 30.1.2025 issuing Bailable Warrant in Sessions Trial No.1190 of 2024 (State Vs. Jayram Singh and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kaundhiyara, District- Allahabad, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Prayagraj 4. Learned counsel for the appellants 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. 5. 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 of the victim and except some offence under SC/ST Act, minor offences have been Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ram Kishore Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ravikant Shukla, G.A. Jayram Singh And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) levelled against the accused. Further, the compromise between the parties is the result of free will and consent of the informant-opposite party no. 2 without any undue influence. 6. 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 summoning order dated 20.12.2021, order dated 30.1.2025 issuing Bailable Warrant in Sessions Trial No.1190 of 2024 (State Vs. Jayram Singh and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) Va of CRLA No. 8841 of 2025 2 SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kaundhiyara, District- Allahabad, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Prayagraj during pendency of present appeal is hereby quashed and the present criminal appeal is allowed in terms of compromise entered into by both the parties. October 17, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 8841 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad