Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133179 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29793 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohammed Gultuja Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kundan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Satendra Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 entire proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 29.01.2024, which is arisen between the parties in S.S.T. No.48 of 2010, (State versus Asin Miya and others), under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC & 3(i)X SC/ST Act, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Deoria arising out of Case Crime No.224 of 2009, Police Station Khampar, District Deoria. 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. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 05.09.2024, has relegated the parties before the Court below to get their compromise verified. Simultaneously direction was issued to learned District Magistrate to submit the report as to whether compensation received by the victim has been made good or not. For ready reference, order dated 05.09.2024 is quoted below :- "Mr. Satendra Kumar-I, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in the Court, which is taken on record. Heard Mr. Kundan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Satendra Kumar-I, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Chauhan, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 48 of 2010 (State Vs. Asin Miya and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 224 of 2009, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(i) x SC/ST Act, Poilice Station Khampar, District Deoria, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Deoria, on the basis of compromise dated 29.01.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. The compromise deed dated 29.01.2024 has been moved before the Court concerned mentioning therein that they have entered into compromise and they do not want to press the case, copy of the said compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-4 to this application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also do not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, after hearing the informant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? The facts regarding the amount towards compensation as received and stated to be returned, shall also be verified through the concerned District Magistrate. A report be called from the concerned District Magistrate whether any compensation was paid to the opposite party no.2 and the said amount has been returned back to the authority concerned or not. Upon due verification of compromise, the Court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. Put up this case on 15.10.2024, as fresh. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. " 4. In Compliance of order dated 05.09.2024, learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Deoria has submitted his compromise verification report dated 04.12.2024, with an averments that both the parties have appeared before the Court below and they have been identified by their respective counsels. Statement of the parties have been recorded who have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress or coercion. In presence of both the parties compromise has been verified. Learned Court below has also acknowledged the letter dated 19.11.2024, send by the District Magistrate to the effect that victim has returned the compensation amount. Moreover, District Magistrate, Deoria, in compliance of order dated 05.09.2024, has submitted his report dated 09.11.2024 to the effect that the victim/complainant have returned the compensation amount/financial assistance, received by them under the SC/ST Act, through Cheque No.015217, dated 28.10.2024, total amounting Rs.12500/-. 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 :- 6.8.2025 I.A.Siddiqui Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad