Allahabad High Court
Suryanath Pandey Alias Surya Prakash … vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103545 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13208 of 2025 Applicant :- Suryanath Pandey Alias Surya Prakash And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narsingh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rama Shankar Upadhyay Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, learned AGA representing State-respondent No. 1 and perused the record on board.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the entire proceedings including the order dated 11.10.2024 as well as warrant of summons in Criminal Case No. 95/2024 (Babalu Gautam vs. Suryanath Pandey and others), under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504, 506, 354Kha I.P.C. and 3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sonaha, District Basti on the basis of compromise deed dated 26.3.2025.
3. During pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 21.4.2025, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.5.2025, learned Magistrate was directed to verify as to whether respondent No. 2 has received any compensation or not. For ready reference, orders dated 21.4.2025 and 20.5.2025 respectively are quoted hereinbelow:
Order Date :- 21.4.2025
“1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 11.10.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of warrant of summons Criminal Case No.95 of 2024 (Babalu Gautam vs. Suryanath Pandey and others), under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504, 506, 354Kha IPC and Section 3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sonaha, District Basti, pending before the court below on the basis of compromise.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In this regard, a compromise deed has been filed before the court below, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No.4 of this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court and will be abuse of 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.
4. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.
5. 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.
6. 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. 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, 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?
7. Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
8. Put up this case on 20.05.2025, as fresh.
9. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.”
Order Date :- 20.5.2025
“List is revised. None appears for O.P. No. 2.
As per office report dated 19.05.2025 compromise verification report is awaited.
Put up this case on 03.07.2025 as fresh, to await the compromise verification report. Interim order, granted earlier, shall continue till the next date of listing.
The District Magistrate, Basti shall also verify as to whether the O.P. No. 2 has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, same may be recovered in accordance with law and a report to that effect be sent to this Court by the next date.
Learned A.G.A. and Registrar (Compliance) shall communicate this order to all concerned.”
4. In compliance of the order dated 21.4.2025, Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act has submitted verification report dated 31.5.2025 along with compromise verification order dated 17.5.2025 to the effect that both the parties have appeared before the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. Both the parties have stated that they entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress or coercion. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified.
5. In compliance of the order dated 20.5.2025, District Magistrate has submitted its report dated 28.6.2025 to the effect that the victims have not received any compensation under the SC/ST Act.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire 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 applicants 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.
7. 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.”
8. 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.
9. 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 wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.
10. 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.
11. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement/agreement inked between the parties, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.
12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 3.7.2025
vinay