Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50740 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9660 of 2023 Appellant :- Harbhajan Singh Sardar And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ruchita Jain,Ruksana Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nidhi Agarwal Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, 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. 3. A perusal of record shows that by way of present instant criminal appeal legality and validity of the summoning order dated 02.07.2018 as well as entire proceedings of the case was assailed whereby the appellants were summoned by the Special Judge SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mahoba to face trial under sections 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha), 3(2) (5ka) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Charkhari, District Mahoba in Complaint Case No. 31 of 2018 (Lakhan Basor Vs. Harbhajan Singh Sardar and others). 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. It is submitted at Bar that since it was complaint case, therefore, no compensation amount was awarded to the victim of this case by the Government. 5. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.10.2023 directed both the parties to prefer compromise deed dated 09.11.2023 before the learned court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Mahoba within 15 days for verification and the learned trial court was directed to verify the compromise deed in presence of both the parties and after due verification submit its report to this Court. 6. In compliance of the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by this Court, learned trial court submitted its verification report dated 18.11.2023 to this Court. 7. 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 levelled against the accused. Further, the compromise between the parties is the result of free will and consent of the complainant without any undue influence. 8. 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" 10. 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. 11. In view of that, this Court finds that since the parties have entered into compromise which has already been verified by the trial court and the compensation amount received by the informant from the Government has already been deposited in the Treasury, now nothing rests in this matter to continue. 12. Hence, the summoning order dated 02.07.2018 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mahoba and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 31 of 2018 (Lakhan Basor Vs. Harbhajan Singh Sardar and others), under sections 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha), 3(2) (5ka) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Charkhari, District Mahoba are set aside and quashed and the present criminal appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise entered into by both the parties. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad