Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on compromise is not permissible for offences affecting society, particularly those under the SC/ST Act.

JUDGMENT :

Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vijay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Awadh Pratap Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 05.09.2024 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 9894/IX arising out of Case Crime No. 403 of 2016 ( Stte of U.P. vs. Abhishek and others ), under Sections 323 , 452, 504 and 506 IPC & 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar.

3. During the pendency of the proceeding before the trial court in the instant case, the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The compromise was also executed. The aforesaid facts of settlement of dispute and execution of compromise has been admitted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 by filing the counter affidavit in the instant case. This Court vide order dated 06.04.2017 had directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the compromise. In terms of the aforesaid order, the compromise executed between the parties was duly verified by the trial court concerned vide order dated 29.06.2017. The certified copy of the said order has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 20.12.2017 filed by the applicants. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the instant case involved the provisions of SC/ST Act, this Court passed the following order on 04.07.2025:

"1. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is directed to verify that any amount was received by the opposite party no. 2 from the Social Welfare Officer. If any such amount has been received by the opposite party no. 2, the same is directed to be refunded to the Social Welfare Officer, in view of the compromise.

2. Put up this matter on 22.7.2025."

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, another supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on 22.07.2025. In pursuant to the aforesaid order the opposite party no.2 has deposited an amount of Rs. 75,000/-, which was received by opposite party no.2 from the office of District Social Welfare Officer, Shamli. In this regard, the copy has already been produced by the District Social Welfare Officer, Shamli. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties, learned counsel for the applicants as well as counsel for the opposite party no.2 seek quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant case.

6. Per contra, learned AGA has raised objection that in the instant case, the offence alleged in the FIR is not a dispute of private nature, rather it affects the society at large. Therefore, the proceeding of the instant case cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. In support of his submission, learned AGA has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others , 2019 (5) SCC 688 .

7. In the rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and the opposite party no.2 are the neighbours and due to the trivial dispute between them, the instant case was lodged against the applicants herein by exonerating the facts of the actual dispute between the parties. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the nature of dispute between the parties was a private, thus the compromise executed between the pa