RAJARAM AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22484 of 2022

Rajaram And 2 Others
                                                .....Applicant(s)
                             Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                   .....Opposite
                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Debee Shanker Pandey, Shiv
                                Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 82
        HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the material on record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for
quashing the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 950 of 2006
(State Vs. Rajaram) arising out of Case Crime No.535 of 2002
under Sections 323, 326, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Handia, District Allahabad pending before learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Allahabad.

3. Vide order dated 29.07.2022, the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had referred the matter before the concerned Court
below for verification of the compromise entered into between
the parties. The learned trial Court vide its report dated
31.10.2022 has reported that the matter has been compromised
between the parties, copy of which report is on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR had
come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some
misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With
passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences
and have settled their dispute amicably in writing, which has
also been verified by the learned trial Court. They realise that
there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that
no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the
correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the
applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by
him. He submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings in
                                                   A482 No. 22484 of 2022
                          2


the aforesaid case are quashed.

6. It is contended that in view of the said compromise, the
pending proceedings before the court below be quashed in the
light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi v.
State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.

7. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held
that in case the dispute has come to an end, under a
compromise/settlement,     between     the    parties,   then
notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC
there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the
proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent
powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in
para-61 that;

"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in 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
justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or
complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and
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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil favour
stand on 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
                                                  A482 No. 22484 of 2022
                          3


personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire
dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash
criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction
is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would
put 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
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer
to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall
be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding."

8. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his
contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court
in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in
(2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand
reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State
of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted
that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their
differences through compromise and as such opposite party
no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the
applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the
prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise,
no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is
allowed to go on.

9. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have
entered into compromise and appear to have settled their real
disputes amicably, which has also been verified by the Court
below, copy of which report is on record. Thus, it further
appears that the opposite party no.2, who would be the key
prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared
his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such
circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the
proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a
waste of precious time by the learned court below.

10. The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that
the facts of the present case and other similar cases present
where, though allegations made in the FIR do contain
ingredients of an offence. However, in view such settlement
                                                    A482 No. 22484 of 2022
                           4


having been reached, the chances of conviction are not only
bleak but if such trials are allowed to continue along with all
other trials that lie piled up in practically all criminal courts in
the state, the continuance of trials in cases such as the instant
case may only work to the huge disadvantage of other cases
where litigants are crying for justice.

11. In normal circumstances, the court would be loathe to
accept some of such compromise arrangements. Sadly, even
that course does not commend itself to the court in view of the
high pendency of criminal cases and the high propensity to lie
and state falsehood that appears to be otherwise rampant in the
society - where desire to take revenge appears to sometime
over shadow the pure pursuit of justice; where winning a legal
battle matters more than doing the right thing; where teaching a
lesson to ones adversary often appears to be the only purpose
of instituting a criminal proceeding.

12. Thus, looking at the prevalent tendencies in the society, a
more pragmatic, and less technical approach commends to the
court - to let some criminal prosecutions such as the present
case be dropped, for the sake of more effective, efficient and
proper trial in other cases where the litigants appear to be
serious about their rights and more consistent in their approach.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties
regarding the compromise entered into between the parties and
taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the
compromise between parties be accepted and further taking
into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC
303, Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra
Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs.
State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid
case is hereby quashed.

14. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus may be allowed,
subject however to payment of cost to be deposited by the
parties before the High Court Legal Services Committee,
Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today. Such
cost has to be imposed to let the parties (in this case) in
particular and the society in general know that the courts
cannot remain a mute spectator to unscrupulous and errant
behaviour by its members. A society that will allow its
members to misuse its courts, will ultimately suffer and pay a
huge cost. Litigants, both genuine and bogus, will always
continue to stand in the same queue. The courts have no
                                                                                           A482 No. 22484 of 2022
                                                                  5


                                        mechanism to pre-identify and distinguish between the genuine
                                        and the bogus litigant. That becomes known only after hearing
                                        is concluded in a case. Hearing requires time. In fact, even if
                                        the courts were to take punitive action against a bogus litigant,
                                        then, being bound by rules of procedure and fairness, such
                                        cases would require more time to be devoted to them than a
                                        case of two genuine litigants.

                                        15. In such circumstances, though no useful purpose would be
                                        served in allowing the prosecution to continue any further,
                                        however, no firm conclusion may be reached, at this stage, as
                                        to complete falsity of the allegations made against the
                                        applicants. The present application 482 Cr.P.C. application
                                        stands allowed, subject however to payment of cost Rs. 4,000/-
                                        (2,000 on each party) to be deposited before the High Court
                                        Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three
                                        weeks from today.

                                        16. The Legal Services Committee exists and works for the
                                        benefit of those litigants for whom court procedures are
                                        difficult to afford. It provides a crucial and essential service to
                                        the society itself. It thus appears proper to direct payment of
                                        the amount of cost to the Legal Services Committee, as a
                                        reminder and warning to the society and its members to
                                        introspect and reflect at their actions and deeds and also at the
                                        consequences that follow.



                                                                            (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                        May 12, 2026
                                        S.Ali




Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad