GEETA PAL AND 9 OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38254 of 2024

Geeta Pal And 9 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Brij Raj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   Ramsagar Yadav, G.A.

Court No. - 80
                 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Brij Raj, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ramsagar
Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the
State and perused the record.

2. The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants
with a prayer to allow this application and quash charge sheet dated
20.07.2023 as well as summoning order dated 30.11.2023 and also entire
criminal proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 853 of 2023 (State v.
Rambali Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0182 of 2023
under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 427, 452 & 120B IPC, and 3(1)(r)/
3(1)(s) /3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Baragaon, District-Varanasi.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have
settled the dispute through the compromise. Learned counsel for the
submits that the opposite party no. 2 has returned back the compensation
amount of Rs.75,000/- vide challan No. L390261 dated 03.12.2025 drawn in
favour of the District Social Welfare Officer, Varanasi, which is placed on
record. The parties have appeared before the Court concerned for
verification of the compromise. The said compromise has been duly verified
by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, vide order dated 21.02.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises
out of personal discord between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2.
It is also argued that the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the
                                                           A482 No. 38254 of 2024
                                 2


matter pending in the Court concerned and, therefore, the impugned
proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties
and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 admits the arguments of
learned counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the
impugned proceeding pending against the applicants is quashed.

6. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for both the parties.

7. Recently, the law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of
settlement arrived between the parties, in the matters under the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as has
been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635 decided on 25.10.2021 has held
that: "the Court has to be mindful of the fact that the 1989 Act has been
enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in
Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of
protecting the members of these vulnerable communities; as well as to
provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.
However, when such offence is primarily private or civil in nature, or where
the alleged offence not committed on account of the caste of the victim, or
where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the
process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings.
Further, in such cases, the Court ought to be even more vigilant to ensure
that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition
of his/her free will and not on account of any duress."

8. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
Constitutional Bench Judgment in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
Another, (2012)10 SCC 303, has held that "But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour 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 personal in
                                                          A482 No. 38254 of 2024
                                 3


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."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujara and another,
(2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the criminal
proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that "even in
the non compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal
proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved
and utilized in other material cases."

10. Both the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending
amongst them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the law
as cited above, the present case is a good case for exercise of power by the
Court to quash summoning order as well as entire proceedings.

11. The dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature that has been
mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no
useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any
longer.

12. The present application for quashing filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
comes within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019 dated
02.09.2025.

13. In view of the above, the entire criminal proceeding of Special Session
Trial No. 853 of 2023 (State Vs Rambali Yadav and others) arising out of
Case Crime No. 0182 of 2023 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 427, 452
& 120B IPC, and 3(1)(r)/ 3(1)(s) /3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-
Baragaon, District-Varanasi, are hereby quashed.
                                                                                            A482 No. 38254 of 2024
                                                                    4


                                    14. The present application is, accordingly, allowed.



                                                                                       (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Aditya Tripathi




Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad