# Khursheed & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 267
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-21
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 5525of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khursheed-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-50914
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(Da),
3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) & 18 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, 332, 353, 342 & 364 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 -
Constitution of India, 1950- Article 21 -
Appellant challenged rejection of anticipatory
bail in Case Crime No. 433 of 2022 for offences
under SC/ST Act and IPC, alleging incident
occurred at night inside an electricity office, not
in public view. Court held: (1) Section 18 of
SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail, but bar is not
absolute; it yields to constitutional protections
under Article 21 in exceptional cases (Prathvi
Raj Chauhan Vs U.O.I., (2020) 4 SCC 727). (2)
Offences under Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha),
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3(2)(V)
of
SC/ST
Act
require
insult
or
intimidation in public view; private incident
inside office at night, without public humiliation,
does not attract these provisions (Hitesh Verma
Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710). (3)
IPC offences (Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, 332, 353, 342, 364) may not apply
without
public
element
or
evidence
of
assembly,
rioting,
or
assault
on
public
servant; private dispute lacks prima facie
criminality (Gopal Mishra Vs St. of U.P., Crl.
Misc. Writ Petition No. 16343 of 2020). (4)
Trial court erred in mechanically applying
Section 18 bar without assessing public view
requirement or Article 21 rights (Dataram
Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22). (5)
Appellant entitled to anticipatory bail; in event
of arrest, released on Rs. 50,000/- bond with
conditions
for
cooperation
and
nonintimidation. Impugned order set aside;
appeal allowed. (Paras 5-13)

Appeal Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Khursheed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
267
to quash a proceeding when it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process
of the Court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The High Courts have been
invested with inherent power, both in civil
and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary
public purposes. A Court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution. The
Court observed in this case that ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law
though justice must be administered
according to laws made by the legislature."

12. From the aforesaid discussion, it
appears that the opposite party no. 2 had let
out his house in the year 2010-11. He wants
to get the house vacant by the tenant.
However, instead of initiating appropriate
civil proceedings for getting the house
vacated by the tenant, he had lodged the
FIR with the aforesaid object. The receipts
in question do not bear any signature of any
person, there is no question of any
signature having been forged by any
person. Moreover, since there is no
allegation that the receipts were prepared
by
the
applicants,
they
cannot
be
prosecuted for the offence of forgery in
preparation of receipts. Therefore, no case
is made out for prosecution of the
applicant.

13. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, I am of the view that the
continuance
of
criminal
proceedings
against the applicants will defeat the ends
of justice and it would be in the interest of
justice that the proceedings be quashed.

14. Accordingly, the application is
allowed and the charge sheet dated
12.08.2021 bearing No. 01 of 2021, under
Sections 420, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B,
467 IPC along with order dated 02.09.2021
as well as the summoning order dated
02.9.2021 as well as non bailable order
dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, are
quashed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 267
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 5525of 2023
and
Application u/s 482 Nos. 12429 of 2023 & 12443
of 2023

Khursheed & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Girish Chandra Sinha

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Avinash Singh Vishen, Avinash Singh
Vishen (Amicus Curiae), Rudra Mani Shukla

Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(Da),
3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) & 18 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, 332, 353, 342 & 364 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 -
Constitution of India, 1950- Article 21 -
Appellant challenged rejection of anticipatory
bail in Case Crime No. 433 of 2022 for offences
under SC/ST Act and IPC, alleging incident
occurred at night inside an electricity office, not
in public view. Court held: (1) Section 18 of
SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail, but bar is not
absolute; it yields to constitutional protections
under Article 21 in exceptional cases (Prathvi
Raj Chauhan Vs U.O.I., (2020) 4 SCC 727). (2)
Offences under Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha),
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3(2)(V)
of
SC/ST
Act
require
insult
or
intimidation in public view; private incident
inside office at night, without public humiliation,
does not attract these provisions (Hitesh Verma
Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710). (3)
IPC offences (Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, 332, 353, 342, 364) may not apply
without
public
element
or
evidence
of
assembly,
rioting,
or
assault
on
public
servant; private dispute lacks prima facie
criminality (Gopal Mishra Vs St. of U.P., Crl.
Misc. Writ Petition No. 16343 of 2020). (4)
Trial court erred in mechanically applying
Section 18 bar without assessing public view
requirement or Article 21 rights (Dataram
Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22). (5)
Appellant entitled to anticipatory bail; in event
of arrest, released on Rs. 50,000/- bond with
conditions
for
cooperation
and
nonintimidation. Impugned order set aside;
appeal allowed. (Paras 5-13)

Appeal Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs U.O.I., (2020) 4
SCC 727 (Para 7)

2. Gopal Mishra Vs St. of U.P., Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition No. 16343 of 2020 (Para 7)

3. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2020)
10 SCC 710 (Para 7)

4. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC
22 (Para 10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,
J.)

1. Heard Shri G.C. Sinha, Advocate
and Shri Avinash Singh Vishen, Advocate
(Amicus Curiae), who appeared in the
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5525 of
2023, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh along
with Shri Pushpendra Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicants in
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12429 of
2023 and Shri Salil Kumar Srivastava,
Advocate, counsel for the applicant in
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12443 of
2023.

2. In all the applications noted
below, the question is as to "Whether
charge-sheet and/or criminal proceedings
based upon the compromise, can be
quashed
in
part."
In
other
words
"Whether
the
charge-sheet
and/or
criminal proceedings based upon the
compromise can be quashed qua the
accused-applicant." As such, all the
petitions are being clubbed together and
are being decided by this common order.

3.1 In APPLICATION U/S 482 No.-
5525 of 2023, the following main
relief(s) has been sought:-

"For the facts & circumstances
enumerated
in
the
accompanying
affidavit it is humbly prayed that the
order of taking cognizance and the
summoning
order
dated
20-07-2019
passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act at
court no. 2, District Sultanpur in Sessions
Trial No. 362 of 2019 in reference to case
crime no. 256 of 2017, P.S.-Kamrauli,
District Amethi under section 147, 279,
337, 233, 504, 506 &452 IPC read with
section 3(1)(D)& 3(2) V(A) of SC/ST Act
as well as the entire proceeding drawn by
the police including the charge sheet
submitted by the police in criminal case
no. 256 of 2017, may kindly be quashed
and any other appropriate order which
the Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper
in the circumstances of the case may also
be passed for the end of justice."

3.2 In APPLICATION U/S 482 No.-
5525 of 2023, this Court on 30.05.2023
after considering the issue involved passed
the following order:
1 All. Khursheed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
269

"Sri Rudra Mani Shukla, Advocate has
put in appearance by way of filing
Vakaltanama on behalf of opposite party
no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

Office is directed to print the name of
Sri Rudra Mani Shukla, Advocate as
counsel for the opposite party no.2 when
the case is listed next.

Learned counsel appearing for the
applicants shall apprise the court that as to
whether on the basis of compromise entered
into between the two accused persons and
the opposite parties, apart from the fact
that there are five accused persons, the part
trial can be quashed.

List/put up this matter in the first week
of June, 2023 as fresh."

3.4 After the aforesaid order, this
Court passed the order dated 07.08.2023
whereby Shri Avinash Singh Vishen,
Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae to
assist the Court on the issue aforesaid. The
order dated 07.08.2023 reads as under:-

"Counter affidavit filed today by
opposite party no.2, is taken on record.

This Court invites Shri Avinash Singh
Bisen, Advocate to assist this Court and he
is hereby appointed as amicus curiae. He
will be paid fee as per the norms of legal
aid services authorities.

List/put up this matter on 24.08.2023
at 3.30 PM.

The counsel for the appellant shall
also provide a copy of the record to the
amicus curiae in between."

3.5 It would be apt to indicate that the
applicants earlier approached this Court by
means of APPLICATION U/S 482 No.-
8536 of 2019 and the same was disposed of
on 25.04.2023 by this Court for the purpose
of verification of compromise by the trial
court and in terms of the order of this Court
dated 25.04.2023, the trial court verified
the compromise on 03.05.2023 and the
present application has been filed seeking
relief(s) quoted above based upon the
compromise dated 03.05.2023 duly verified
by the trial court on 03.05.2023.

4.1 In the APPLICATION U/S 482
No. - 12443 of 2023, (Karamveer Tripathi
and others vs. State of U.P. and Another),
the following main relief has been sought:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to quash the proceedings of
Criminal Case No.95018 of 2019; State
Versus Karamveer Tripathi and others,
arising out of Case Crime No.71 of 2018,
under sections- 323, 504 I.P.C., relating to
Police
Station-Mahanagar,
District-
Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned
Special
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
(C.B.I./Ayodhya
Prakaran),
Lucknow, as well as impugned chargesheet
dated 23.8.2019, submitted against the
petitioners by the Investigating Officer in
aforesaid
case
crime
number,
and
impugned cognizance and summoning
order dated 22.10.2019, passed by the
learned Special Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
(C.B.I./Ayodhya
Prakaran),
Lucknow, as contained in Annexure nos.1
and 2 respectively to the instant petition, in
the light of compromise, attained between
the parties, in the interest of law and
justice."

4.2 It would be apt to indicate that
earlier the applicants approached this Court
by means of APPLICATION U/S 482 No.-
9837 of 2022, (Karamveer Tripathi And
Others vs. State of U.P. And Others), and
the said petition was disposed of vide order
dated 23.12.2022 with direction to the
concerned court to verify the compromise
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 28.11.2022 and liberty was also
granted to the applicants to approach this
Court for quashing of the proceedings and
in terms of the order of this Court dated
23.12.2022, the trial court verified the
compromise
dated
28.11.2022
on
18.03.2023 as appears from the order
passed by the trial court on 18.03.2023,
which is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the
application and the present application has
been filed for the relief(s) sought, quoted
above, on the basis of the compromise
dated 28.11.2022 duly verified by the trial
court on 18.03.2023.

5.1 In the APPLICATION U/S 482
No. - 12429 of 2023, (Arvind Singh
Bhadauria vs. State of U.P.), the following
main relief has been sought:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to quash the proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 10694 of 2020; State
Versus Surya Lal Yadav and others, arising
out of Case Crime No.62 of 2018, under
sections- 341, 323, 506 I.P.C., relating to
Police
Station-Mahanagar,
District-
Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned
Special
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
(C.B.I./Ayodhya
Prakaran),
Lucknow, as well as impugned chargesheet
dated 15.8.2019, submitted against the
petitioner by the Investigating Officer in
aforesaid
case
crime
number,
and
impugned cognizance and summoning
order dated 18.1.2020, passed by the
learned Special Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
(C.B.I./Ayodhya
Prakaran),
Lucknow, so far as the same relate to the
petitioner-Arvind Singh Bhadauria, as
contained in Annexure nos.1 and 2
respectively to the instant petition, in the
light of compromise, attained between the
parties, in the interest of law and justice."

5.2 It would be apt to indicate that the
applicant earlier approached this Court by
means of APPLICATION U/S 482 No.-
9798 of 2022 and the same was disposed of
on 23.12.2022 by this Court and a perusal of
the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by this
Court indicates that the application was
disposed of for the purpose of verification of
compromise by the trial court and in terms of
the order of this Court dated 23.12.2022, the
trial court verified the compromise dated
28.11.2022 on 18.03.2023 and the present
application has been filed seeking relief,
quoted above, based upon the compromise
dated 03.05.2023 duly verified by the trial
court on 03.05.2023.

6. Admittedly in the application under
consideration, all the accused have not
entered into the compromise and all the
applications have been filed for quashing of
charge-sheet and/or criminal proceedings qua
the applicants based upon the compromise.

7.1 Before considering the issue
involved in this case, it would be apt to
indicate that the issue regarding quashing
of criminal proceedings in exercise of
power under Section 482 CrPC has already
been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the following judgment.

7.2 A three judge Bench of the Apex
Court in the case of GIAN SINGH V.
STATE OF PUNJAB (2012) 10 SCC 303,
observes the plenitude of power of this
Court for its exercise under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. and holds that cases can be
closed on account of settlement barring
heinous offences, the Apex Court has held
as follows:-

"61. The position that emerges from
the above discussion can be summarised
thus: the power of the High Court in
1 All. Khursheed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
271
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint to 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, or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any court. In what
cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
where the and the 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 a serious impact on
society. Similarly, any compromise between
the victim and the offender in relation to
the offences under special statutes like the
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 predominating civil stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceedings if in its view, because
of the compromise between the offender
and the victim, the possibility of conviction
is remote and bleak and continuation of the
criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that the criminal case is put to
an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceeding."

(Emphasis supplied)

7.3 A three Judge Bench of the Apex
Court again in PARBATBHAI AAHIR V.
STATE OF GUJARAT (2017) 9 SCC 641
has held as follows:-

"16. The broad principles which
emerge from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following
propositions:

16.1.
Section 482 preserves
the
inherent powers 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.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction
of the High Court to quash a first
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a
criminal proceeding or complaint 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.

16.4. 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.

16.5. 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.

16.6. In the exercise of the power
under Section 482 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 appropriately 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.

16.7 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.

16.8.
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.

16.9. 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 16.10. There is yet an
exception to the principle set out in
propositions
16.8.
and
16.9.
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
misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or
economic
system
will
weigh
in
the
balance."

(Emphasis supplied)

7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court after
considering the various pronouncements
including the judgments passed in the cases
of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012,
10 SCC 303], Narindra Singh and others
vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466,
Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat,
1 All. Khursheed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
273
(2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, 2017 SCC
OnLine SC 1799 in the case of observed
as under:-

"15. Considering the law on me point
and the other decisions of this Court on the
point, referred to hereinabove, it is
observed and held as under:

15.1. 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:

15.2. 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;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to
be exercised for the offences under the
special statutes like the 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.

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC
and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences
and therefore are to be treated as crime
against the society and not against the
individual alone, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under Section
307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which
have a serious impact on the society cannot
be quashed in exercise of powers under
Section 482 of the Code, off the ground
that the parties have resolved their entire
dispute amongst themselves. However, the
High Court would not rest, its decision
merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is
framed under this provision. It would be
open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC
is there for the sake of it or the prosecution
has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to framing the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose it
would be open to the High Court to go by
the nature of injury sustained, whether such
injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts
of the body, nature of weapons used, etc.
However, such an exercise by the High
Court would be permissible only after the
evidence is collected after investigation and
the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not
permissible when the matter is still under
investigation.
Therefore,
the
ultimate
conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the
decision of this Court in Narinder Singh
should be read harmoniously and to be read
as a whole and in the circumstances stated
hereinabove;

15.5. While exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private
in nature and do not have a serious impact
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 conduct
of the accused, namely, whether the
accused was absconding and why he was
absconding, how he had managed with the
complainant to enter compromise, etc.
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7.5 A two Judge Bench of the Apex
Court again in Ramgopal vs. State of M.P.
(2022) 14 SCC 531 has held as follows:-

"19. ... Nonetheless, we reiterate that
such powers of wide amplitude ought to be
exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in
mind:

19.1. Nature and effect of the offence
on the conscience of society; 19.2.
Seriousness of the injury, if any;

19.3. Voluntary nature of compromise
between the accused and the victim; and
19.4. Conduct of the accused persons, prior
to and after the occurrence of the purported
offence
and/or
other
relevant
considerations."

8. In nutshell, the High Court in
exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC
can quash the charge-sheet and/or criminal
proceeding even if the offence is noncompoundable under Section 320 of the
CrPC and the said power can be exercised
by the High Court in the light of the
observations
made
in
the
judgments
referred above which includes quashing of
criminal proceeding on the basis of
compromise.

9. Reverting to the issues involved in
these applications, Shri Anurag Kumar
Singh, Advocate and Shri Avinash Singh
Visen, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) stated
that there is no bar in quashing the chargesheet and/or criminal proceeding in part or
qua the accused-applicant. It is also stated
that trial Court is empowered to discharge
one or some accused, if case is not made
out, and can try other co-accused and in the
relevant provisions of CrPC viz. Sections
227, 239 and 245 in regard to the same
there is no bar. It is also stated that a
perusal of various pronouncements would
show that the Court can quash the F.I.R.,
the basis of criminal proceedings including
the charge-sheet, charge-sheet and criminal
proceedings qua the accused-applicant. To
substantiate the submissions, reliance has
been placed on the following judgments:-

(i) Chandra Bhal vs. State of U.P.
reported in (1971) 3 SCC 983.

(ii) Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia
and
Others
vs.
Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre and Others reported
in 1998 1 SCC 692.

(iii) Rajbir Singh vs. State and
Another passed in Crl.M.C. No.880/2007.

(iv) Sanjay Kriplani vs. State of
NCT of Delhi and Others passed in
CRL.M.C. 1981/2013.

(v) Geeta Mehrotra and another vs.
State of U.P. reported in (2012) 10 SCC
741.

(vi) Lovely Salhotra and Another vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) And Another
reported in 2018 12 SCC 391.

(vii) Poonam Khanna vs. State and
Others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Del
6918.

(viii) Sunil Tomar vs. The State of
NCT of Delhi and Another passed in
CRL.M.C.1741/2021.

(ix) Mrs. Ridhi Kumar vs. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) And Another
passed in the W.P. (CRL) 1399/2021.

(x) Karan Sharma vs. The State of
NCT of Delhi and Another passed in the
CRL.
M.C.2987/2022&CRL.M.A.
12562/2022.

(xi) Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 2022 13 SCC 635.

(xii) Kapil Gupta vs. State of N.C.T.
of Delhi and Another reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1030.

(xiii) Ganganpal Singh Ahuja and
Others vs. State of U.P. reported in 2023
AHC 118620.
1 All. Khursheed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
275

(xiv) Haji Iqbal @ Bala vs. State of
U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 2343 of 2023
decided on 08.08.2023.

9.1 The case of Chandra Bhal
(supra) has been relied upon to show that
separate trial is permissible.

9.2 In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed
the FIR qua the petitioner based upon the
compromise. As per the observations made
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the High Court
while exercising the power of quashing
under Section 482 CrPC, is required to
consider as to whether it is expedient and in
the justice to permit the prosecution to
continue and whether the chances of
conviction are bleak and no useful purpose
is likely to be served.

9.3 In the case of Rajbir Singh
(supra), the Delhi High Court based upon
the compromise quashed the FIR qua the
applicant.

9.4 In the case of Sanjay Kriplani
(supra), the Delhi High Court quashed the
FIR qua the petitioner in exercise of power
under Section 482 CrPC after considering the
judgment passed in the case of Rajbir Singh
(supra).

9.5 In Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the
FIR was lodged by the wife under Section
498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the
husband,
father-in-law,
mother-in-law,
brother-in-law and sister-in-law and the
sister-in-law
and
brother-in-law
of
complainant,
after
dismissal
of
writ
petition, approached the Hon'ble Apex
Court and after considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble
Apex Court quashed the proceedings qua
the appellants (sister-in-law and brother-inlaw). Thus, the criminal proceedings were
quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in part.

9.6 In the case of Lovely Salhotra
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court specifically
observed that " The High Court was wrong
in holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in
part." In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court
quashed the FIR qua the appellants.

9.7 In the case of Ms. Poonam
Khanna (supra), the Delhi High Court
after
considering
the
various
pronouncements quashed the FIR qua the
petitioner in exercise of power under
Section 482 CrPC.

9.8 In the case of Sunil Tomar
(supra), the Delhi High Court after
considering the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Madhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindia (supra) quashed the
FIR qua the applicant in exercise of power
under Section 482 CrPC.

9.9 In the case of Mrs. Ridhi Kumar
(supra), the Delhi High Court after taking
note of Lovely Salhotra (supra) and
Sunil Tomar (supra) quashed the FIR qua
the petitioner in exercise of power under
Section 482 CrPC.

9.10 In the case of Karan Sharma
(supra), the Delhi High Court after
considering the judgment passed in the
case of Kapil Gupta (supra) quashed the
FIR and all the criminal proceedings
emanating therefrom qua the petitioner
based upon the compromise.

9.11 In the case of Ramawatar
(supra), Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the
proceedings arising out of FIR No.18 of
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1994 at Police Station-O.E. Panna under
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities Act), 1989 (in short "the SC/ST
Act") read with Section 34 of the Penal
Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") which were
pending against Ramawatar (appellant
before the Hon'ble Apex Court) and as per
the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in this judgment, the High Court can quash
the criminal proceedings based upon the
compromise even with regard to noncompoundable offence.

9.12 In the case of Kapil Gupta
(supra),
the
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
considering
the
compromise
arrived
between the parties quashed the two FIRs
lodged against the appellant before the
Hon'ble Apex Court.

9.13 In the case of Haji Iqbal
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court quahsed
the FIR No. 195 of 2022 registered under
Sections 376-D and 506 IPC and the
consequential criminal proceedings qua the
accused-appellant.

10. From the reports referred above it
is
apparent
that
an
FIR/chargesheet/criminal proceedings can be quashed
in part. In other words, "the FIR/chargesheet/criminal proceedings can be quashed
qua the accused-applicant in exercise of
power under Section 482 CrPC. However,
this power can be exercised if the case of
the said accused-applicant falls within the
proposition settled by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the judgments referred above.
Questions framed above are answered
accordingly.

11. Now, coming to the facts of the
case. In the APPLICATION U/S 482 No.
12429 of 2023 (Arvind Singh Bhadauria
Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home
Deptt.
Lko.
And
Another)
and
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 12443 of
2023 (Karamveer Tripathi and 2 Others
Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home
Deptt. Lko. And Another), indisputably,
the offences are compoundable and in
these cases both the sides lodged cross
FIRs i.e. FIR No. 0062 dated 02.02.2018
lodged by Akhilesh Tripathi (Applicant
No. 3 in Application U/S 482 No. 12443
of 2023) and FIR No. 0071 dated
08.02.2018 lodged by Arvind Singh
Bhadauria (Applicant in Application U/S
482 No. 12443 of 2023) and now, the
parties
to
these
applications
which
include informant(s) namely Akhilesh
Tripathi and Arvind Singh Bhadaurai
have settled the dispute and to the same
effect, a compromise was entered into
and the same has been verified by the
trial court on 18.03.2023 in terms of the
order of this Court dated 23.12.2022
passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No.-
9837 of 2022 and APPLICATION U/S
482 No.- 9798 of 2022, respectively, and
taking note of the same as also the nature
of accusation and the fact that after
compromise, the chance of conviction of
the applicants of these applications are
bleak, this Court is of the view that no
fruitful purpose would be served in
keeping the proceedings pending against
these
applicants.
Accordingly,
the
prayer(s) sought in theAPPLICATION
U/S 482 No. 12429 of 2023 (Arvind
Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. Thru.
Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And
Another) andAPPLICATION U/S 482
No. 12443 of 2023 (Karamveer Tripathi
and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.
Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another) are
hereby allowed. Criminal proceedings
including
the
charge-sheet(s)
and
summoning order, indicated herein-under,
1 All. Manjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
277
are hereby quashed qua the applicant(s) of
APPLICATION U/S 482 No.12429 of 2023
namely Arvind Singh Bhadauria and
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 12443 of
2023
namely
Karamveer
Tripathi,
Dharmveer Tripathi and Akhilesh Tripathi.

a. Proceedings of Criminal Case
No.95018
of
2019;
(State
Versus
Karamveer Tripathi and others), arising
out of Case Crime No.71 of 2018, under
Sections- 323, 504 I.P.C., Police StationMahanagar, District- Lucknow, pending in
the Court of learned Special Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I./Ayodhya
Prakaran), Lucknow, as well as impugned
charge-sheet
dated
23.8.2019
and
impugned cognizance and summoning
order dated 22.10.2019, passed by the
learned Special Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, (C.B.I./Ayodhya Prakaran),
Lucknow.

b. Proceedings of Criminal Case No.
10694 of 2020; (State Versus Surya Lal
Yadav and others), arising out of Case
Crime No.62 of 2018, under Sections-
341, 323, 506 I.P.C.,Police StationMahanagar, District- Lucknow, pending in
the Court of learned Special Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I./Ayodhya
Prakaran), Lucknow, as well as impugned
charge-sheet
dated
15.8.2019,
and
impugned cognizance and summoning
order dated 18.1.2020, passed by the
learned Special Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, (C.B.I./Ayodhya Prakaran),
Lucknow.

12. In regard to Application U/S 482
No.5525 of 2023, the victim and the
applicants have settled the dispute amicably
out of the court and to the same effect, a
compromise was entered into and the same
has already been verified by the trial court
on 03.05.2023 in terms of the earlier order
of this Court dated 25.04.2023 passed in
Application U/S 482 No.8536 of 2019
and taking note of the same as also the
accusation made against the applicants in
the FIR as also the observations made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ramawatar (supra), this Court is of the
view that chances of conviction of
applicants are extremely bleak and no
fruitful purpose would be served in
keeping the proceeding pending against
the
applicants
of
this
application.
Accordingly, the Application U/S 482
No.5525 of 2023 is allowed. The entire
proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 362 of
2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 256
of 2017 under section 147, 279, 337, 233,
504, 506 &452 IPC read with section
3(1)(D)& 3(2) V(A) of SC/ST Act, Police
Station.-Kamrauli,
District
Amethi
including the charge-sheet submitted by
the police in Criminal Case no. 256 of
2017 as also the cognizance and the
summoning
order
dated
20-07-2019
passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act
at court no. 2, District Sultanpur, are
hereby quashed qua the applicants namely
Khursheed and Rihan.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 277
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 11016 of 2023

Manjeet Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Adarsh Shukla, Rajiv Raman Srivastava