Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36837 of 2022

Applicant :- Ashutosh And 3 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chitranshu

Srivastav,Sunny Srivastava

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for

the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused

the record.

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the

prayer to quash entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 20 of

2019 (Rajendra Vs. Ashutosh and Others) under Sections 323,

504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) D of the S.C./S.T. Act, Meerut,

pending in the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Meerut, in

terms of compromise deed.

The parties, out of their own free will, have settled their dispute

amicably and in furtherance thereof, they have filed a

compromise deed dated 22.10.2022 annexed as Annexure No.5

to this application. Vide order 3.12.2022 has sent the said

compromise deed to the trial court with a direction to get the

same verified and submit a report. Pursuant to the order dated

3.12.2022, report alongwith order-sheet dated 21.12.2022 has

been placed on record.

Learned counsel for the parties have not disputed the fact that

the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they

compromise deed dated has been verified by the trial Court.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants

has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10

SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and

another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State

of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai

Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and

another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down the following

guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as

well regarding compromise in criminal proceedings in

paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the judgement, which is quoted

below:

"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 recognizes and

preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

16.2. 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.

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 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. He