# Jhabbu Dubey @ Pradeep Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. & Ors. 544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 543
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5184 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jhabbu-dubey-pradeep-kumar-dubey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-544-indian-law-reports-50240
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act (POA), 1989 - Section14A(1), 3(1)(द) & (ध) of SC/ST - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Section 324-Challenge
to-Chargesheet as well as Cognizance
order- the informant and the injured have
given their respective affidavits before the
concerned court denying the entire story
and denying his presence over the place of
incident-The
injured
himself
in
his
affidavit clearly absolved the appellant
from commission of the offence-He stated
in his affidavit that out of sheer accident
he has fallen down and consequently
received injuries and the appellant is not
at all guilty of the alleged offences- if
there is a compromise between the
contesting parties, then the deposit of the
amount back in the State exchequer shall
be sine-qua-non and condition precedent
for any settlement or truce between the
parties without which no compromise
could be verified by the court concernedSince all the four proceedings have
already been allowed by this Court, still
the victims are directed to deposit the
amount received by them within next
twenty days in the treasury of Samaj
Kalya
Vibhag
of
respective
Session's
Division.(Para 1 to 27)

B. When there is settlement between the
parties, there is no threat for any offensive
against
the
victim
and
the
entire
atmosphere is full of peace, tranquility and
positivity. There cannot be any good
justification to keep that money for the
victim and in all fairness they are supposed
to return back the money to the State
Government. This is the hard-earned money
of innocent tax-payers and any atrocities
against the victims cannot be exploited to
earn and enjoy the money from the State
Government
even
when
there
is
compromise between them.(Para 24)

C. The financial assistance is given with a
sole motive to victims considering that they
are downtrodden so that they may not feel
scared
or
hopeless
and
give-up
the
proceedings on account of paucity of funds.
The State has come out to help them and
Welfare Department of the State has been
authorised and empowered to provide
financial assistance to them. This indeed is a
laudable object whereby the State being a
welfare State is providing the financial
assistance to the victims belonging to SC/ST
community so that they may contest their
cases, summon the witnesses and meet out
all the expenses incurred during trial. Thus
the underline idea of providing financial
assistance is that there shall not be any
paucity of funds to the victim in contesting
the case to its logical conclusion and the
wrongdoers may be suitably punished and
penalized for their acts committed against
the victims. All these arrangements are
provided to the victims by the State
Government only to achieve an objective
that the members of SC/ST community
should feel free in contesting the case and
rest of the financial burden shall be borne
out by the State. (Para 22)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,643 of 55,389. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39643 for what follows._

5 All. Jhabbu Dubey @ Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543
any play. For every offence, a drastic
measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an
offender cannot be allowed to be treated
with leniency solely on the ground of discretion
vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh
the circumstances in which the crime has been
committed and other concomitant factors which
we have indicated hereinbefore and also have
been stated in a number of pronouncements by
this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are
to be imposed. The discretion should not be in
the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the
conceptual essence of just punishment. In Gopal
Singh v. State of Uttrakahand (2013) 7 SCC
545, the Apex Court elaborating the sentencing
that, while imposing sentence, has to keep in
view the various complex matters in mind. In
respect of certain offences, sentence can be
reduced by giving adequate special reasons but
the special reasons have to rest on real special
circumstances.

35. In the instant case, alleged incident
took place on 20.09.2007, about 16 years ago.
Appellant Amar Pal is not a previous convict. He
has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been
brought to the notice of the court that the
accused/ appellant after being released on bail
had ever misused the liberty of bail so granted to
him.
Keeping
in
view
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and the fact that the
appellant has already faced the agony of the
protracted prosecution A perusal of the record
reveals that he has served out more than four
years of his sentece and that accused-appellant
alone cannot be held responsible for long delay
in disposal of this appeal. Considering all aspects
of the matter, no useful purpose would be served
by sending accused-appellant in to judicial
custody to suffer further imprisonment, rather it
appears that ends of justice would meet, if his
sentence is redued to the period already
undergone, it will be in the interest of justice that
his sentence be reduced to the period of sentence
already undergone. Sentence of fine is, however,
maintained along with its default clause. His
appeal is liable to be dismissed with above
modification in the impugned judgment and
order dated 01.05.2010.

36. Resultantly, the instant appeal is party
allowed against the appellant Amar Pal with
following directions:-

(i) The judgment of conviction dated
01.05.2010 is confirmed though the sentence
awarded, is modified to the period of already
undergone. Accordingly, he be enlarged
forthwith, if he is not in judicial custody he need
not surrender and his bail bonds are cancelled
and sureties stands discharged.

(ii) The amount of fine shall be paid
by appellant Amar Pal within three months from
the date of furnishing certified copy of the
judgment. In default, thereof, appellant has to
undergo an additional simple imprisonment as
awarded by the trial court.

(iii) A copy of judgment be sent to
Court concerned for necessary information and
compliance.

(iv) Trial court's record be remitted
back forthwith.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 543
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5184 of 2022
And
Criminal Appeal No. 6104 of 2022
And
Application U/S 482 No. 22777 of 2022 & 2189
of 2023

Jhabbu Dubey @ Pradeep Kumar Dubey
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Jaysingh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari, Sri
Animesh Srivastava, Sri Ashish Kumar

A. Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act (POA), 1989 - Section14A(1), 3(1)(द) & (ध) of SC/ST - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Section 324-Challenge
to-Chargesheet as well as Cognizance
order- the informant and the injured have
given their respective affidavits before the
concerned court denying the entire story
and denying his presence over the place of
incident-The
injured
himself
in
his
affidavit clearly absolved the appellant
from commission of the offence-He stated
in his affidavit that out of sheer accident
he has fallen down and consequently
received injuries and the appellant is not
at all guilty of the alleged offences- if
there is a compromise between the
contesting parties, then the deposit of the
amount back in the State exchequer shall
be sine-qua-non and condition precedent
for any settlement or truce between the
parties without which no compromise
could be verified by the court concernedSince all the four proceedings have
already been allowed by this Court, still
the victims are directed to deposit the
amount received by them within next
twenty days in the treasury of Samaj
Kalya
Vibhag
of
respective
Session's
Division.(Para 1 to 27)

B. When there is settlement between the
parties, there is no threat for any offensive
against
the
victim
and
the
entire
atmosphere is full of peace, tranquility and
positivity. There cannot be any good
justification to keep that money for the
victim and in all fairness they are supposed
to return back the money to the State
Government. This is the hard-earned money
of innocent tax-payers and any atrocities
against the victims cannot be exploited to
earn and enjoy the money from the State
Government
even
when
there
is
compromise between them.(Para 24)

C. The financial assistance is given with a
sole motive to victims considering that they
are downtrodden so that they may not feel
scared
or
hopeless
and
give-up
the
proceedings on account of paucity of funds.
The State has come out to help them and
Welfare Department of the State has been
authorised and empowered to provide
financial assistance to them. This indeed is a
laudable object whereby the State being a
welfare State is providing the financial
assistance to the victims belonging to SC/ST
community so that they may contest their
cases, summon the witnesses and meet out
all the expenses incurred during trial. Thus
the underline idea of providing financial
assistance is that there shall not be any
paucity of funds to the victim in contesting
the case to its logical conclusion and the
wrongdoers may be suitably punished and
penalized for their acts committed against
the victims. All these arrangements are
provided to the victims by the State
Government only to achieve an objective
that the members of SC/ST community
should feel free in contesting the case and
rest of the financial burden shall be borne
out by the State. (Para 22)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ramgopal Vs The St. of M.P. in CRLA
No.1489 of 2012

2. Ramawatar Vs The St. of M.P. in CRLA
No.1393 of 2011

3. The St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors.
(2019) 5 SCC 688

4. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. (2012) 10 SCC 303

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Shri
Achyut Jee, Shri Girish Singh, Shri Anil
Kumar Yadav, Shri Ajeet Singh learned
5 All. Jhabbu Dubey @ Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
545
counsel for the appellants/applicant and
Shri Animesh Srivastava, Shri Ashish
Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2
as
well
as
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State.
Perused the record of the case.

2. The common prayer sought by
these proceedings, is that the further
proceedings of the respective cases which
are pending against the accused-appellants
before different courts at different stages
may
be
dropped
in
the
light
of
compromise/settlement between the parties.
These
cases
relate
to
the
relevant
provisions of SC/ST Act along with
sections of I.P.C. are also involved, for
which accused-appellants are facing trial,
meaning thereby, that the pending cases
against the appellants/applicants may be
quashed, as there is truce and settlement
between the contesting parties and the
informants of these cases are not inclined to
prosecute the appellants/applicants in the
light of compromise/settlement executed
between the parties.

3. Before addressing on the merit of
the case, it is desirable to give a bird's eye
view on the factual aspect involved in
respective cases, so as to appreciate the
controversy
in
hand
in
its
correct
perspective :

(I)
CRIMINAL
APPEAL
NO.5184 OF 2022 (JHABBU DUBEY @
PRADEEP KUMAR DUBEY) :

This is the appeal u/s 14-A(1) of
SC/ST Act on behalf of Jhabbu Dubey @
Pradeep Kumar Dubey challenging the
charge sheet dated 7.6.2022 as well as the
cognizance order dated 4.7.2022 in S.S.T.
No.265 of 2022 (State vs. Jhabbu Dubey @
Pradeep Kumar Dubey), pending in the
court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act,
Lalitpur, arising out of Case Crime No.76
of 2022, u/s 324, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(द) &
(ध) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Jakhaura, District
Lalitpur. The informant of the F.I.R. is
Surendra s/o Haricharan Khatik and the
injured in this case is his brother
Shailendra.

F.I.R. was registered by the
informant Surendra against the appellant
Jhabbu Dubey on 11.4.2022 for the
incident said to have taken place on
10.4.2022, with the allegation that on the
fateful day the informant along with his
brother Shailendra was sitting, suddenly
Jhabbu Dubey, without any rhyme and
reason, started hurling filthy abuses and
when resisted, he became aggressive and
by sword, he has caused injuries to his
brother
Shailendra.
The
investigation
reveals sufficient material against the
appellant and accordingly on 7.6.2022 a
report u/s 173(2) of Cr.P.C. by the
concerned I.O. was filed u/s 324, 504 I.P.C.
and Section 3(1)(द) & (ध) of SC/ST Act
against the appellant. Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Lalitpur on 4.7.2022 has taken
cognizance of those offences and issued
process against the appellant to face the
prosecution arising out of Case Crime
No.76 of 2022 u/s 324, 504 I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)(द) & (ध) of SC/ST Act.

Pending
the
proceeding,
the
informant Surendra s/o Haricharan Khatik
and the injured Shailendra s/o Haricharan
Khatik
have
given
their
respective
affidavits before the concerned court on
31.5.2021, denying the entire story of
10.4.2022 and denying his presence over
the
place
of
incident.
The
injured
Shailendra himself in his affidavit clearly
absolved the appellant from commission of
the offence. He stated in his affidavit that
out of sheer accident he has fallen down
and consequently received injuries and the
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant is not at all guilty of the alleged
offences.

After
having
the
affidavits,
present appeal u/s 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act
was filed for quashing of the proceeding
pending against the appellant.

On the earlier occasion, in this
case the Court has sought a report from the
District Magistrate, Lalitpur/Social Welfare
Officer as to what amount of compensation
has
been
advanced
to
the
injured
Shailendra. Consequently, a report from the
C.J.M.,
Lalitpur
dated
3.8.2022
was
received, which indicates that Rs.25,000/-
(25%) has been advanced to the injured
pursuant to Rule 12(4) of SC/ST Rules,
1995 and its relevant Schedule.

(II) Criminal Appeal No.6104
of 2022 (Vishwanath Yadav and another
vs. State of U.P. and another):

Short counter affidavit filed today
by Devendra Kumar-opposite party no.2, in
which in paragraph 5, there is admission to
the effect that a compromise was executed
on 10.5.2021 on his own volition and
accord and he voluntarily moved before the
concerned court so as to quash the
proceeding pending against the appellants
on the basis of compromise between the
contesting parties.

In this appeal the prayer sought is
to set aside the impugned order dated
10.5.2022 passed by the Special Session
Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi as well as entire
criminal proceeding of Special Case
No.1578 of 2019 (State vs. Vishwanath and
another), arising out of Case Crime No.114
of 2019, u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)(द) & (ध) of SC/ST Act, Police
Station-Moth, District -Jhansi in terms of
compromise dated 10.5.2022.

Perusal of the order impugned
dated 10.5.2022 indicates that the learned
Session Judge have mentioned that the said
compromise relates to the SC/ST Act and
as the offences u/s SC/ST Act are not
compoundable, and thus the compromise is
rejected and declined.

In this case the F.I.R. was got
registered as Case Crime No.114 of 2019
on 27.4.2019, u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)(ध) of SC/ST Act by the
informant Devendra against the appellants
Vishwanath Yadav and Shilu with the
allegation, in brief, that on the fateful day
around 06.30 he was sitting at his house
and
per
force
the
appellants
were
compelling the informant to perform their
work and when the informant refused, they
started hurling filthy abuses and assaulting
him by kicks and fists, causing injuries to
him. After commission of assault, both of
them fled away from the site.

After recording the statements,
the police have submitted charge sheet on
31.5.2019 u/s 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(ध) of
SC/ST Act against the appellants and the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, have
taken cognizance of those offences on
25.9.2019 under the aforesaid sections. In
addition to this, on 20.2.2020 the charges
were also framed against the appellants u/s
323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(ध) of SC/ST Act
by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi.
Thereafter, the appellants were bailed out
in the matter and the trial is progressing
against them slowly.

Meanwhile an application dated
10.5.2022 was given by the informant
before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Jhansi, mentioning therein that the opposite
party no.2 is the injured as well as the
informant of the case who lodged the FIR,
but on account of intervention by the local
co-villagers and other respectable members
of the society, the matter has been settled
down amicably between the parties outside
the court. Now there is no grudges against
the appellants and the opposite party no.2
5 All. Jhabbu Dubey @ Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
547
does not want to proceeding with the case
any more and same may be quashed.

(III) APPLICATION U/S 482
No.22777 OF 2022 (Dharmendra @
Bauwa Bajpai and another vs. State of
U.P. and 2 others):

In this case, the extra-ordinary
power of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was
invoked
to
quash
the
charge
sheet
No.89/2021 dated 01.06.2021, cognizance
order dated 29.7.2021 as well as entire
criminal proceeding of Case No.672 of
2021 (State vs. Dharmendra @ Bauwa
Bajpai and another), arising out of Case
Crime No.44/2021, u/s 342, 323, 308 I.P.C.
and 3(1)(द) of SC/ST Act, Police Station
Chaubepur, District Kanpur Nagar on the
basis of compromise dated 24.6.2022,
pending
in
the
court of Additional
District/Session Judge, Court No.2/Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat.

Genesis of this case starts from
lodging of F.I.R., which was registered as
Case Crime No.44 of 2021 at Police Station
Chaubepur on 28.2.2021 by the informant
Harishchandra (opposite party no.2) against
Bauwa Bajpai and Vinay for the incident
said to have taken place on 27.02.2021 with
the allegation that on the fateful day around
11.00 in the night the applicants had called
the informant's brother Shobhit Gautam and
brutally assaulted him by kicks and fists
and he got admitted in Prakash Nursing
Home. The FIR was registered u/s 342, 323
I.P.C. and 3(1)(द) of SC/ST Act, but after
the investigation into the case, the police
have submitted report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.
u/s 342, 323, 308 I.P.C. and 3(1)(द) of
SC/ST Act, mentioning that Section 308
I.P.C. has been added among array of
sections keeping in view that the injured
has received head injury. Cognizance of
those offences was taken by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat
on 29.7.2021.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants has drawn attention of the Court
to Annexure-6, which is a compromise
deed executed on 24.6.2022, signed by
Harishchandra (the informant) and Shobhit
Gautam and countersigned by Dharmendra
@ Bauwa Bajpai and Vinay. In support of
said application, they have filed the
affidavit sworn by Shobhit Gautam, the
injured. In para-5 of the affidavit, it is
mentioned that since both the accused as
well as victim belongs to same village,
therefore, after intervention of reputed
persons of the village, there is truce and
compromise between them. After this
compromise which was signed by the
informant on his free and sweet will, the
informant does not want to proceed with
the case any more and he wants that the
impugned proceeding against the applicants
may be quashed in the light of the
compromise.

(IV) APPLICATION U/S 482
No.2189 OF 2023 (Rakesh and 3 others
vs State of U.P. and another):

By means of the present 482
application the applicants are invoking the
plenary power of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
challenging the entire proceeding of
Special Session Trial No.134 of 2022 (State
vs. Bhajuram & others), arising out of Case
Crime No.152 of 2014, u/s 147, 323, 504,
427 I.P.C. & Session 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST
Act, Police Station Puranderpur, District
Maharajganj, pending in the court of
learned
Special
Judge,
SC/ST
Act,
Maharajganj in the light of compromise
entered between the parties.

In fact this is the third application
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicants.
First 482 Application No.6326 of 2022
(Rakesh & 3 others vs. State of U.P. &
another) which was disposed of by
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 6.7.2022 with a direction to get the
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compromise executed between the parties
verified from the concerned court below.
Thereafter,
second
482
Application
No.29644 of 2022 (Rakesh & 3 others vs.
State of U.P. and another) which was
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file
a fresh vide order dated 07.12.2022.

It is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that the informant Arjun
belongs to ''Dhobi' caste has lodged an FIR
through an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
for the incident said to have taken place on
30.11.2013 at 05.00 in the evening, but its
FIR was came into existence on 12.02.2014
at 13.10 hours. It was alleged by the
informant that all named accused persons
have assaulted by lathi and danda causing
injuries to Prabhavati and Sharda. The
accused persons are 5 in number including
one lady Ishrawati, belongs to caste
''Kalaar' (OBC). FIR was registered u/s
147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 380 I.P.C.
and during investigation the police has
added Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act, but the
charge sheet was submitted against the
applicants on 26.2.2014 only u/s 147, 323,
504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X of
SC/ST Act.

I have perused the compromise
deed dated 23.02.2022 and 20.7.2022
(Annexure-9 and 10 to the petition) and
verification order dated 18.8.2022 passed
by the court below (Annexure-10 to the
petition). I have also perused the respective
affidavits of the informant as well as
injured lady, who in so many words have
accepted
that
on
account
of
some
misunderstanding they have lodged an FIR,
but now there is a truce and compromise
between them and the injured does not
want to proceed with the case any further
against the applicants. Therefore, they have
requested that they have got no objection, if
the entire proceeding pending against the
applicants is quashed in the light of
compromise.

4. Above-mentioned is the factual
narration
of
respective
cases
which
deserves attention of the Court.

5. Respective counsels have floated
their statements at length and have relied
upon two recent judgments pronounced by
Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of
compounding
of
offences,
especially
focusing the provisions of SC/ST Act in
addition to the provisions of Indian Penal
Code. These two celebrated judgments
recently pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex
Court are :

(i) Ramgopal vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal
No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29.9.2021.

(ii) Ramawatar vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal
No.1393 of 2011 decided on 25.10.2021.

Both these judgments are of great
help in deciding of aforesaid Criminal
appeals u/s 14A(1) of SC/ST Act as well as
Applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

6. After hearing the respective
counsels at considerable length and learned
A.G.A., a question of law poses for
consideration; as to whether the High Court
has power to quash the proceedings
emanating
from
non-compoundable
offences, which has no adverse impact or
depriving effect on the society at large on
the basis of compromise between the
accused and the victim. This issue is no
longer res integra and same has been
authoritatively
settled
by
number
of
judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The
learned counsels have heavily counted on
these compromise/settlement between the
parties and sought the quashing of criminal
5 All. Jhabbu Dubey @ Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
549
prosecution in its entirety, relying upon the
aforesaid recent judgments of Hon'ble
Apex Court, Ram Gopal (supra) and
Ramawatar (supra).

7. Learned A.G.A. has controverted
the factum of compromise and floated his
own submissions against the prayer sought
by the appellants/applicants.

8. Before scrutinizing the facts of
these cases and especially the power of this
Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C., it would be desirable
to spell out the relevant extract of yet
another celebrated judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303 which
reads thus :

"61. ......the power of the High
Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or
FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the
power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320
of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it
has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court. In what
cases power to quash the criminal proceeding
or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised
where the offender and victim have settled
their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category
can be prescribed. However, before exercise
of such power, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even
though the victim or victim's family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have
serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and offender
in relation to the offences under special
statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity etc; cannot
provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on
different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, High
Court may quash criminal proceedings if in
its view, because of the compromise between
the offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction
is
remote
and
bleak
and
continuation of criminal case would put
accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite full
and complete settlement and compromise
with the victim. In other words, the High
Court must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim
and wrongdoer and whether to secure the
ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceeding."

9. On the identical footing the Hon'ble
Apex Court have carved out broad
fundamentals from the various judicial
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pronouncements and has been recapitulated
by a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others,
2019 (5) SCC 688, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court in its para-15 has elaborated, as
under :

(1) that the power conferred
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal
proceedings
for
the
noncompoundable offences under Section 320
of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the
civil character, particularly those arising
out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes and when the parties have
resolved
the
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves;

(2) such power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact
on society;

(3) similarly, such power is not to
be exercised for the offences under the
special
statutes
like
Prevention
of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim
and the offender;

(4) xxxxxxxxxx;

(5) while exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the criminal proceedings in respect of
non-compoundable offences, which are
private in nature and do not have a
serious impart on society, on the ground
that there is a settlement/compromise
between the victim and the offender, the
High Court is required to consider the
antecedents of the accused; the conduct of
the accused, namely, whether the accused
was
absconding
and
why
he
was
absconding, how he had managed with the
complainant to enter into a compromise
etc."

10. Now the Court has to strike a
balance between the provisions of Section
320 Cr.P.C. on one hand, and Section 482
Cr.P.C. on the other hand. Meaning
thereby, the offences which are not
compoundable can be compounded in the
criminal court in purported exercise of
powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Any such exercise
or attempt by the court would amount to
alteration, addition and modification of
Section 320 of Cr.P.C., falls within the
exclusive
domain
of
the
legislature.
Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to
compound an offence within the framework
of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo
against invoking the inherent powers of the
High Court in the interest of justice and in
order to attain the larger good keeping in
view the peculiarity of the facts and
circumstances of such cases and for the
justifiable reasons could be invoked its
plenary powers to prevent the abuse of
process of court and to secure the ends of
justice. Thus the High Court, therefore,
having regard to the nature of the offence
and the facts of the parties, who have
amicably
settled
their
dispute
and
misunderstandings outside the court and
willingly consented to nullify the criminal
proceeding, can quash such proceeding in
exercise of its plenary power u/s 482
Cr.P.C., even though the offences are not
compoundable in nature. The High Court
can indubitably evaluate the consequential
impact of the offence beyond the body of
an individual, and therefore, adopt a
pragmatic approach to ensure that the
felony, even if goes unpunished, does not
5 All. Jhabbu Dubey @ Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
551
tinker with or paralyze the very object of
administration of criminal justice.

11. The offences which are serious
offfences or which involved the moral
turpitude or have a harmful effect on the
society or a moral fabric of the society or
matter involves the concerning of public
policy can not be construed betwixt two
individual or group only and such an
offence have a potential to impact the
society at large. If such an offence is
permitted to compound or the offender of
such an offence goes unpunished, it would
not only send a wrong signal to the society,
but may also accord undue benefit to
unscrupulous, habitual or professional
offenders, who can secure a settlement
through duress, threats, societal boycotts,
bribes or other dubious means.

12.

Marshaling
the
facts
and
circumstances and crystallizing the various
previous legal pronouncements of Hon'ble
Apex Court, in the case of Ramgopal vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal
Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on
29.9.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court have
well analyzed the axiom that the plenary
jurisdiction of this Court to impart a
complete justice under Article 142 of the
Constitution cannot ipso facto be limited or
restricted by ordinary statutory provisions.
It is also noteworthy that even in the
absence of an express provision akin to
Section 482 Cr.P.C., conferring powers on
the Supreme Court to abrogate and set
aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction
exercisable under Article 142 of the
Constitution embraces this Court with
scopious
powers
to
quash
criminal
proceeding also, so as to secure complete
justice. Similarly on the same line and path,
the High Courts too, are armed with the
power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings where the parties on its own
volition and accord decided to bury their
differences and dispute outside the court,
approaches the High Court for quashing the
proceedings, the High Court can exercise
its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
proceedings to secure the complete justice
between them. In doing so a due regard
must be given to the overarching objective
of sentencing in the criminal justice system,
which
is
grounded
on
the
sublime
philosophy of maintenance of peace of the
collective and that the rational of placing an
individual behind bars is aimed at his
reformation.

13. Thus, the L.C.M. of aforesaid
discussion is that as opposed to section 320
Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided
by the compromise between the parties in
respect of offences ''compoundable' within
the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary
power enjoined upon a High Court Under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in the
Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the
metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Nonetheless, it is reiterated that such powers
of wide amplitude ought to be exercised with
its extreme care and cautious in the context of
quashing criminal proceeding, bearing in
mind : (i) nature and effect of offence on the
conscious and temper of the society; (ii)
seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii)
voluntary nature of compromise between the
accused and the victim; and lastly (iv)
conduct of the accused persons, prior to an
after the occurrence of the purported offence
and/or other relevant considerations in
accepting the settlement and to be acted upon
by the court of law in exercise of power u/s
482 Cr.P.C.

14. Now in the instant cases where the
informant/victims belonging to SC/ST
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
community lodged F.I.Rs. u/s 323, 324,
504, 506, 342, 308 and other allied sections
of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (द) & (ध) of
SC/ST Act, and now the parties have come
to terms. In this regard a judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramawatar vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) is of
great value and help. In para-18 of this
judgment
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
was
conscious enough to hold that having a
truce and compromise with a person belong
to scheduled caste and scheduled tribes
community, it is expected from the courts
law to be more vigilant and cautious to
ensure that the complainant/victim has
entered into compromise on his/her own
free will and sweet will and there is no
duress or coercion, threat or allurement
from any quarter. It is further observed that
since
a
member
of
scheduled
castes/scheduled tribes community belong
to the weaker sections of our country, they
are more prone to acts of coercion, and
therefore, ought to be accorded a high level
of
protection.
Therefore,
accepting
settlement between them the court has to
test the covenants of the said compromise
on the touchstone of following tests,
namely :

Firstly,
the
occurrence(s)
involved
in
these
appeals
can
be
categorized as purely personal or having
overtones of criminal proceedings of
private nature;

Secondly, the nature of injuries
incurred, for which the Appellants have
been convicted, do not appear to exhibit
their mental depravity or commission of an
offence of such a serious nature that
quashing of which would override public
interest;

Thirdly, give the nature of the
offence and injuries, it is immaterial that
the trial against the Appellants had been
concluded or their appeal(s) against
conviction stand dismissed.

Fourthly, the parties on their own
volition,
without
any
coercion
or
compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have
buried their differences and wish to accord
a quietus to their dispute(s);

Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both
the cases took place way back in the years
2000 and 1995, respectively. There is
nothing on record to evince that either
before or after the purported compromise,
any untoward incident transpired between
the parties;

Sixthly, since the Appellants and
the complainant(s) are resident of the same
village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the
quashing of criminal proceedings will
advance peace, harmony, and fellowship
amongst the parties who have decided to
forget and forgive any ill-will and have no
vengeance against each other; and

Seventhly,
the
cause
of
administration of criminal justice system
would remain un-effected on acceptance of
the amicable settlement between the parties
and/or
resultant
acquittal
of
the
Appellants; more so looking at their
present age.

Though the list is not exhausted
but these are the basic tests on which the
settlement is to be tested between the
parties.

15. Taking the guidance from above
guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court and
comparing the facts of the present cases,
the nature, gravity of the offence in which
charge sheet has been submitted by the
police, more particularly the contesting
parties belong to same village, reside either
in the neighbourhood or nearby, and out of
a sheer fit of anger some heated passion or
altercation took place which resulted into
an act of offensive by the accused against
5 All. Jhabbu Dubey @ Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
553
the complainant. After lapse of time the
contesting parties themselves feel like that
they have to reside in the same village for
their remaining life with the intervention of
elders and sane people of the society,
adhering to the cardinal principle of forget
and forgive, in a cool and composite mind,
they have decided to settle down the issue
forever.

16. We are in our 75th year of
independence, a mature democracy where
there is sufficient spread of education
system even in rural areas and there is
sufficient amount of awareness among all
the stratas of the society including persons
belonging
to
SC/ST
community.
In
addition to this, there is upsurge of
electronic media, social media even in the
remote areas of our villages, the people are
now more aware and vigilant about their
rights, powers and duties. The situation is
improving slowly but steadily, even in the
rural areas, and therefore, there is steep rise
in lodging of the criminal cases by the
members of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled
Tribes community. It is also a welcome
step that the parties are readily accepting
the compromise between them on various
accounts viz : resides in same village or in
close vicinity; relationship between them
for generations; inter-dependence etc. are
cooling
factors.
These
are
the
circumstances where the role of law courts
should be act as a catalyst between them to
bury their disputes and differences, instead
of keep the matter linger on for an
unlimited period permitting the animosity
between them more firm and irrevocable.
Long drawn enmity sometimes give a
disastrous result to the general peace and
tranquility of the society, and thus, it is
expected from the law courts to act in a
pro-active way and after evaluating and
taking into account the above mentioned
factors, try to bury the differences for good
in larger interest of the society.

17. In all above mentioned four cases,
the penal provisions involved are u/s 147,
323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 342, 308 and other
allied sections of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (द)
& (ध) of SC/ST Act. The parties on their
own have decided to come to truce and
bury their differences amicably. This Court
in exercise of its plenary power u/s 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code or Section 14(A)-
1 of SC/ST Act have seen the covenants of
the compromise and gauged the nature and
gravity of the offence, in which the accused
persons charged for, and this Court has no
hesitation or objection to quash the
proceedings of aforementioned cases in the
light of compromise between the contesting
parties for attaining the larger good and
welfare of society. As mentioned above,
the law courts should act in a pro-active
way with the hope and trust that nothing
untoward may happen in future between
the parties and, thus, in the light of the
above discussion these Criminal Appeals
u/s 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act and
Applications
u/s
482
Cr.P.C.
are
ALLOWED, and the impugned orders and
proceedings of respective cases, whose
details are given herein below :-

(i) Charge sheet dated 7.6.2022,
cognizance order dated 4.7.2022 and entire
proceeding in S.S.T. No.265 of 2022 (State
vs. Jhabbu Dubey @ Pradeep Kumar
Dubey), pending in the court of Special
Judge (SC/ST) Act, Lalitpur, arising out of
Case Crime No.76 of 2022, u/s 324, 504
I.P.C. and 3(1)(द) & (ध) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-
Jakhaura, District Lalitpur.

(ii)
Impugned
order
dated
10.5.2022 passed by the Special Session
Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi as well as entire
criminal proceeding of Special Case
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.1578 of 2019 (State vs. Vishwanath and
another), arising out of Case Crime No.114
of 2019, u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)(द) & (ध) of SC/ST Act, Police
Station-Moth, District -Jhansi.

(iii) charge sheet No.89/2021
dated 01.06.2021, cognizance order dated
29.7.2021 as well as entire criminal
proceeding of Case No.672 of 2021 (State
vs. Dharmendra @ Bauwa Bajpai and
another), arising out of Case Crime
No.44/2021, u/s 342, 323, 308 I.P.C. and
3(1)(द) of SC/ST Act, Police Station
Chaubepur,
District
Kanpur
Nagar,
pending
in
the
court
of
Additional
District/Session Judge, Court No.2/Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat.

(iv) Entire proceeding of Special
Session Trial No.134 of 2022 (State vs.
Bhajuram & others), arising out of Case
Crime No.152 of 2014, u/s 147, 323, 504,
427 I.P.C. & Session 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST
Act, Police Station Puranderpur, District
Maharajganj, pending in the court of
learned
Special
Judge,
SC/ST
Act,
Maharajganj.

The above mentioned impugned
charge sheets, orders or proceedings
pending
against
the
respective
appellants/applicants before the concerned
courts are hereby QUASHED.

RETURN OF AMOUNT TO THE
STATE IS SINE QUA NON

18.