Allahabad High Court
Ravi Kesarwani And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100699 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20158 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravi Kesarwani And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Mani Tripathi,Yogendra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Shri Dharmendra Singh, learned Advocate, has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3, in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to print his name as counsel for opposite party.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as Charge Sheet dated 07.11.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 27.11.2024 in Special Session Trial No. 266 / 2024 (State vs Ravi Kesharwani and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 34/2023 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC and 3 (2) Va of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Airport, District- Nagar Commissionerate Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj.
4. 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 compromise inked between the parties coordinate Bench of this court in application under Section 528 BNSS No. 7304 of 2025 (Ravi Kesarwani And 2 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others) has directed the parties to appear before the court below and get their compromise verified. The aforesaid application under Section 528 BNSS was disposed of finally vide order dated 5.3.2025. For ready reference, order dated 5.3.2025 is quoted herein below :-
“1. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 by Sri Dharmendra Singh (AOR No.A/D-0257/2012) is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State and Sri Dharmendra Singh, learned AGA for the opposite party No. 2.
3. This application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash impugned charge sheet dated 07.11.2023 as well as impugned cognizance and summon order dated 27.11.2024 and entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 266 / 2024 (State vs Ravi Kesharwani and Others) u/s 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC and u/s 3 (2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Va (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 arising out of Case Crime No. 34/2023 Police Station- Airport, District- Nagar Commissionerate Prayagraj pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Prayagraj.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a first information report stood lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicants being No. 0034 of 2023 on 29.9.2023 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC and u/s 3 (2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Va (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention towards Annexure 3 at page 46 onwards of the paper book reference whereof has been made at para 2 & 14 that the parties have entered into compromise on 15.2.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that direction be issued for verification and in the meantime interim protection be accorded.
5. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that once as per the applicants, compromise application has already been preferred then the direction be issued for verification of the same.
6. Considering the said submission, the application stands disposed of directing the applicants to appear before the court below on 19.03.2025 along with the self attested copy of the present application. On the receipt of the same, the court below shall make endeavour to put to notice the other party and thereafter verify the compromise application as alleged to have been filed by the applicant by 23.05.2025.
7. Till the verification is done in the compromise application so submitted by the parties, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 266 / 2024 (State vs Ravi Kesharwani and Others) u/s 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC and u/s 3 (2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Va (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 arising out of Case Crime No. 34/2023 Police Station- Airport, District- Nagar Commissionerate Prayagraj pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Prayagraj. The protection accorded to the applicants is only available subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. The parties are free to take legal recourse post outcome of the compromise.
8. The issue of deposit and return of compensation by the victim shall be looked into while getting the verification report from concerned District Social Welfare Officer through District Magistrate.”
5. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this court both the parties were appeared before the court below alongwith copy of compromise (paper no.8) and copy of the order dated 5.3.2025 passed by this court. Learned ADJ/ Special Judge S.C./S.T., Prayagraj, has verified the compromise vide order dated 24.4.2025 with an observation that both the parties have appeared before the court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. Compromise (paper no.8) has been verified before the court in presence of both the parties. Certified copy of the compromise and the certified copy of the verification order dated 24.4.2025 are collectively filed as Annexure no.3 to the instant application. It is apposite to mention that District Social Welfare Officer, Prayagraj has submitted his report dated 20.5.2025, in compliance of order dated 5.3.2025 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court to the effect that victim Brij Kumar Bharti has returned the compensation (financial aid) under the SC/ST Act amounting to Rs.75,000/- in Government Treasury through challan DC 27042 dated 21.4.2025. Certified copy of the report dated 20.5.2025 filed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Prayagraj, is annexed as Annexure no.10 to this application.
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 burried 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.
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 Nos. 2 and 3 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 and peace will be resorted between them. 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 :- 1.7.2025/vkg