Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2733

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
Anil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 29776 of 2021, Application U/s 482 No. 33155 of 2024
Decided On : 06-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Shailendra Yadav, Yogesh Kumar Tiwari
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kumar Tripathi

Compromises can be validated in non-compoundable offences, allowing for quashing of criminal proceedings if the parties amicably settle their disputes.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 506, 376, 313, 323, 504 - Proceedings of criminal cases quashed due to compromise between parties - The court noted that prolonging proceedings serves no useful purpose as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. (Paras 3, 10)

(B) Compromise - The court reaffirmed that compromises can be accepted even in non-compoundable offences, referencing Supreme Court judgments that support this principle. (Paras 7, 9)

Facts of the case:
The applicants challenged criminal proceedings arising from allegations under various IPC sections, asserting that they reached a compromise, which was initially rejected due to the non-compoundability of the offences.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the compromise was verified by the lower court and that continuing the proceedings would be futile.

Issues: The main issue was whether the compromise could be recognized despite the offences being non-compoundable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the verification of compromise by the lower court justified quashing the proceedings, aligning with precedents allowing for compromises in certain cognizable offences.

Result: Proceedings quashed and application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Satyendra Nath Tiwar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of Application U/s 482 No. 29776 of 2021, the applicant-Anil Kumar has challenged the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 284 of 2020, State v. Sudhir Nishad and others, pending th before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V , Jaunpur arising out of Case Crime No. 345 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 506, 376, 313 IPC, Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur and by means of Application U/s 482 No. 33155 of 2024 the applicants - Sudheer Nishad, Sabhajeet and Vimla Devi have challenged order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 362 of 2022, State v. Sudheer Nishad and others, arising out of Case Crime No.345 of 2018, against the applicant no.1-Sudheer Nishad, underSections 323, 504, 498-A, 313 I.P.C. and against the applicant no.2- Sabhajeet and applicant no.3-Vimla Devi, under Sections 323, 498-A, 313 I.P.C., Police Station-Badlapur, District-Jaunpur.

3. On 27.11.2024, the following order was passed:-

"Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, and perused the record. By means of Application U/s 482 No. 29776 of 2021, the applicant - Anil Kumar has challenged the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 284 of 2020, State v. Sudhir Nishad and others, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Jaunpur arising out of Case Crime No. 345 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 506, 376, 313 IPC, Police Station Badalpur, District Jaunpur and by means of Application U/s 482 No. 33155 of 2024 the applicants - Sudheer Nishad, Sabhajeet and Vimla Devi have challenged order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 362 of 2022, State v. Sudheer Nishad and others.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into a compromise. In this regard, an application was moved on behalf of the parties putting signatures of all the alleged accused persons mentioning therein that they do not want to proceed with the case as the applicant no. 1 is living happily with opposite party no. 2 after resolving the dispute. The aforesaid application is rejected by order dated 30.07.2024 on the ground that the offence is not compoundable. Learned counsel further submits that the order impugned dated 30.07.2024 has been passed without realizing the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants will ruin the happy married life of the couple and would be futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court as also will be abuse of process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 Learned AGA does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

In view of the above, parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed and certified copy of this order. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditio