Allahabad High Court
RAJ BAHADUR @ GULKAI AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The court held that where a verified compromise exists between the parties, even for non‑compoundable offences, the criminal proceedings may be quashed.
Summary
The appellants filed a criminal appeal seeking to quash the cognizance and all proceedings in Sessions Case No. 227 of 2025, which involved offences under the B.N.S. and the SC/ST Act, on the ground that the parties had reached a compromise that was verified by the trial court. A coordinate bench of the High Court stayed the proceedings and directed the parties to file the compromise deed, which the trial court later verified. Both parties, including the State, consented to the quashal. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments that permit compromise even in certain cognizable, non‑compoundable offences. Considering the verified settlement and the lack of any public interest in continuing the trial, the court held that the proceedings should be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the criminal case was quashed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise between parties, verified by the trial court, lead to the quashal of criminal proceedings for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under the B.N.S. and SC/ST Act?
- Does the consent of the State and the verification of the compromise deprive the court of jurisdiction to continue the prosecution?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- quash of criminal proceedings
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- special judge
- criminal appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2200 of 2026
Raj Bahadur @ Gulkai And 4 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ran Jeet Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vijay Bahadur, G.A.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as
perused the entire material available on record.
2. This appeal has been filed with the prayer to quash the
cognizance/summoning order dated 3rd February, 2025 as well as entire
proceedings of Sessions Case No. 227 of 2025 (State Vs. Raj Bahadur @
Gulkai & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2024, under Sections
333, 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 115 (2), 352, 351 (3) and 324 (2) of B.N.S. and
Sections 3 (2) (5A), 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-
Garautha, District-Jhansi pending in the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T.),
Jhansi on the basis of compromised so arrived at between the parties.
3. While entertaining the present criminal appeal, a Coordinate Bench of this
Court passed following order on 26th February, 2026:
"1. Learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel for informant and Sri
Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for State are present.
2. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that the parties have
settled their dispute by entering into compromise.
3. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within
three weeks from today and ti file their compromise before it.
4. Learned Trial Court is directed to verify the compromise deed and will
submit its reply on or before the next date fixed.
5. Put up as fresh on 24.3.2026.
6. Till then the further proceedings of Session Case No. 277 of 2025 (State
CRLA No. 2200 of 2026
2
Vs. Raj Bahadur alias Gulkai and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of
2024, under Sections 333, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(2)
B.N.S. and 3(2)5A, and 3(1), r, s SC/ST Act, at Police Station Garautha,
District Jhansi shall remain stayed."
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the trial court vide its letter dated 13th
March, 2026 informed the Court that after appearance of the appellant and
opposite parties appeared before the trial court, the trial court vide order dated
11th March, 2026 has verified the compromise so arrived at between the
parties and the trial court identifies the same. The letter dated 13th March,
2026 is on record along with order-sheet.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the compromised so
arrived at between the parties and the same has also been verified by the
court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be may be
quashed by this Court.
6. Learned A.G.A. for the State and the learned counsel for opposite party no.
2 have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
Today, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has filed short counter affidavit
in which it has been stated that the informant/opposite party no.2 has not
taken any compensation from the State exchequer. The short counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC
675,
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex 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. &
Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court
in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein
above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the
CRLA No. 2200 of 2026
3
court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by
prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the
parties have already settled their dispute.
10. Accordingly, the cognizance/summoning order dated 3rd February, 2025
as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 227 of 2025 (State Vs.
Raj Bahadur @ Gulkai & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2024,
under Sections 333, 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 115 (2), 352, 351 (3) and 324 (2) of
B.N.S. and Sections 3 (2) (5A), 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police
Station-Garautha, District-Jhansi pending in the Court of Special Judge
(S.C./S.T.), Jhansi are hereby quashed.
11. The present appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
May 6, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…