Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113660 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23978 of 2021 Applicant :- Km. Purnima Singh @ Mona Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Shukla,Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Swayamanand Sisodiya,Yash Raj Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Heard Sri Swayamanand Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arpit Khanna, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 20.09.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Special Criminal Case No.131 of 2017 (Smt. Premlata Kureel Versus Km. Purnima Singh @ Mona Singh and others) under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)Da, Dha S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Kanpur Nagar. 3. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 22.01.2025, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. A direction was issued as well to clarify as to whether compensation amount under the S.C./S.T. Act has been received or not. For ready reference, order date 22.01.2025 passed by this Court is quoted herein below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. None is present for opposite party no.2. 2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 20.09.2018 passed in Criminal Case No. 131 of 2017 (Smt. Premlata Kureel Vs. Km. Purnima Singh @ Mona Singh and Others) u/s 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) Da, Dha S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Panki, District- Kanpur Nagar. 3. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Therefore, instant application may be allowed and criminal proceedings may be quashed. 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, both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the court below on 10.02.2025/11.02.2025 to get their compromise verified. The learned court concerned, in turn, shall verify the same in presence of both the parties after recording their statements and submit its verification report on or before the next date fixed. 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 18.04.2025, along with compromise 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 her version, if any. 9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in aforesaid case. " 4. In pursuance of the order dated 22.01.2025, learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Kanpur Nagar has submitted its verification report dated 11.02.2025 alongwith the compromise verification order dated 10.02.2025, report of District Social Welfare Officer Kanpur Nagar and the copy of the compromise application. It has been observed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Kanpur Nagar that both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The contents of the compromise have been spelt out to the parties who have nodded the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. As per the report of District Social Welfare Officer Kanpur Nagar, no financial aid was extended to the victim/complainant under the S.C./S.T. Act. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified on the consent of the parties. Certified copy of the order dated 10.02.2025 is annexed. For ready reference the same is quoted herein below: "10.02.2025 1. पततवलल पपश हहयल। पपकतर पर वतददनल पपमलतत कप रलल एवव अदभयपकत शलमतल पपदररमत ससवह उरर अररत ससवह उरर ममनत ससवह मय दवदतन असधवकतगर नयतयतलय कप समक उपसससत आयल। 2. वतददनल पपमलतत कप रलल एवव अदभयपकत शलमतल पपदररमत ससवह उरर अररत ससह उरर ममनत ससवह दतरत पतसरनतपत एवव सपलहनतमत ददनतवदकत 16.09. 2023 पसतपत करतप हहए मतननलय इलतहतबतद उचच नयतयतलय दतरत यतदचकत अनतरगत धतरत 482 सवखयत 23978/2021 कप ० पपदररमत ससवह उरर ममनत ससवह बनतम सटपट आर यप० पल० व अनय मम पतररत आदपश ददनतवदकत 22.01.2025 कप अनपपतलन मम कतयरवतहल करनप कक पतसरनत कक गयल हह। 3. पसतपत अदभयमग दवशपष दतसणणक वतद सवखयत 131/2017 धतरत 406, 420, 504, 506 भत०द०सव० व धतरत 3 (1) द, 3 (1) ध अनपसपदचत जतदत / अनपसपदचत जनजतदत (अतयतचतर दनवतरर) असधदनयम सतनत पनकक, कतनपपर नगर मम मतननलय इलतहतबतद उचच नयतयतलय दतरत यतदचकत अनतरगत धतरत 482 सवखयत 23978/2021 कप ० पपदररमत ससवह उरर ममनत ससवह बनतम सटपट आर यप० पल० व अनय मम ददनतवक 22.01.2025 कम यह आदपश पतररत दकयत गयत हह दक दमनम पककतर अवर नयतयतलय कप समक ददनतवक 10.02.2025/11.02.2025 कम सपलहनतमत सतयतदपत करवतनप हपतप उपसससत हह और अवर नयतयतलय दमनम पककतरह कक उपसससदत मम उनकत बयतन लपखबद करनप कप पशतत सपलहनतमत कम सतयतदपत करपगत और सतयतपन आखयत मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय मम दनयत ददनतवक यत उससप पपवर पपदषत करपगत, इसल कप सतस मतननलय इलतहतबतद उचच नयतयतलय दतरत इस तथय कम भल सतयतदपत करनप कत दनदरश ददयत गयत हह दक कयत पसतपत अदभयमग मम पररवतददनल / पलदडतत दतरत अनपसपदचत जतदत / अनपसपदचत जनजतदत अतयतचतर दनवतरर असधदनयम कक दनयमतवलल वषर 1995 कप अनतरगत कमई मपआवजत पतप दकयत गयत यतव नहल। 4. मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कप आदपश ददनतवदकत 22.01.2025 कप अनपपतलन मम वतददनल शलमतल पपमलतत कप रलल एवव अदभयपकत शलमतल पपदररमत ससवह उरर अररत ससह उरर ममनत ससवह कप बयतन आज नयतयतलय मम लपखबद दकयप गयप और दमनम पककतरह दतरत आपसल दववतद समतप हमनत कससत करतप हहए सपलहनतमत ददनतवदकत 16.09.2023 कम सवलकतर दकयत गयत। पककतरह दतरत पसतपत सपलहनतमत पर वतददनल शलमतल पपमलतत कप रलल कक दशनतखत उसकप दवदतन असधवकत शल मनलष कप मतर शमतर एवव अदभयपकत शलमतल पपदररमत ससवह उरर अररत ससह उरर ममनत ससवह कक दशनतखत उसकप दवदतन असधवकत शल पवकज ससवह दतरत नयतयतलय कप समक कक गयल। नयतयतलय दतरत उभयपक कम सपलहनतमत पढकर सपनतयत व समझतयत गयत, उभयपक नप सपलहनतमत कम सवलकक त दकयत। वतददनल शलमतल पपमलतत कप रलल एवव अदभयपकत शलमतल पपदररमत ससवह उरर अररत ससवह उरर ममनत ससवह कक उपसससदत मम नयतयतलय दतरत सपलहनतमत ददनतवदकत 16.09.2023 कम सतयतदपत दकयत गयत। 5. मतननलय इलतहतबतद उचच नयतयतलय कप आदपश ददनतवदकत 22.01.2025 कप अनपपतलन मम इस नयतयतलय दतरत सजलत समतज कलयतर असधकतरल कतनपपर नगर सप आखयत आहहत कक गयल। सजलत समतज कलयतर असधकतरल कतनपपर नगर कप पततवक सवखयत 6530-31/ स०क० / अनप०जत०आ०उठम०/2024-25 ददनतवक 06.02.2025 दतरत इस नयतयतलय कम यह आखयत दल गयल हह दक दवशपष दतसणणक वतद सवखयत 131/2017 शलमतल पपगलतत कप रलल बनतम कप ० पपदररमत ससवह उरर ममनत ससवह कप अदभयमग मम वतददनल / पलदडतत शलमतल पपमलतत कप रलल पतनल अरर कप रलल दनवतसल मकतन नव० 13 रतनपपर सतनत पनकक कम अनपसपदचत जतदत/अनपसपदचत जनजतदत अतयतचतर दनवतरर असधदनयम कप अनतरगत कमई भल आससरक सहतयतत नहह दल गयल हह। 6. मतननलय इलतहतबतद उचच नयतयतलय कप आदपश ददनतवदकत 22.01.2025 कप अनपपतलन मम सतयतदपत समझझततपत कम इस आदपश कक सतयतदपत पदत कप सतस मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कक सपवत मम सतदर पपदषत दकयत जतए। पततवलल पपवर मम दनयत ददनतवक 07.03.2025 कम पपश हम।" 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant 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. 6. 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 recognises 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 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." 7. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Imtiyaz Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad