VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          LUCKNOW
                    APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10751 of 2025

Vijay Bahadur Singh And Another
                                                                       .....Applicant(s)
                                         Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home
Lko. And Another                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                 :   Santosh Singh, Jay Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   G.A.

Court No. - 16
                        HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s), learned A.G.A. for the State-
opposite party no.1 and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, who has
filed power on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.19720 of 2023, State Vs. Vijay Bahadur
Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No.519 of 2023, under Sections
406, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh and the
summoning order dated 27.10.2023, pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pratapgarh.
4. In pursuance of order dated 26.11.2025 passed by this Court, the compromise
deed dated 19.09.2025 annexed as Annexure-12 to the application has been
verified by the court concerned vide order dated 20.12.2025. Therefore,
submission is that the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are
liable to be quashed.
5. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Supreme
Court:
i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003)4 SCC 675;
ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677;
iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1;
iv. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303;
v. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and
                                                                     A482 No. 10751 of 2025
                                       2

vi. State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296

6. In the aforesaid judgments, the Supreme Court has categorically held that
compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain
cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to
the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2013 (83) ACC 278, in which the law expounded by the Supreme
Court in some of the judgments noted above has been explained in detail.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 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 compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs
16 to 16.10, which read as under:
"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 pwers 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 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. 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 in so
far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile,
                                                                                                         A482 No. 10751 of 2025
                                                                           3

                                    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."

                                    8. Considering the fact that compromise between the parties has been entered
                                    into, which is on record; both the parties being present here; looking into the
                                    facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein-above as also the
                                    submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the Court is of the considered
                                    opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings
                                    of above mentioned case.
                                    9. Accordingly, application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal
                                    Case No.19720 of 2023, State Vs. Vijay Bahadur Singh and others, arising out
                                    of Case Crime No.519 of 2023, under Sections 406, 506 IPC, Police Station
                                    Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh and the summoning order dated 27.10.2023,
                                    pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, are hereby
                                    quashed so far it relates to the applicant(s).



                                                                                                         (Brij Raj Singh,J.)
                                    January 5, 2026
                                    Rao/-




Digitally signed by :-
CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench