Allahabad High Court

VIRENDRA AND 10 OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The court held that when parties have arrived at a genuine compromise and the dispute is private, the court may quash the criminal proceedings and set aside the cognizance order.

Summary

The appellants, Virendra and ten others, appealed against the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the charge‑sheet and cognizance order dated October 2019 in a case involving offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 323/149, 504, 506 and SC/ST Act sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)Dha. They claimed that the parties had reached a compromise and the matter was settled amicably, seeking quash of the proceedings. The High Court, after verifying the compromise and noting that the compensation of Rs.75,000 paid to the opposite party had been refunded to the State, exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the cognizance order and quash the charge‑sheet. The court held that where the dispute is essentially private and the parties consent to settlement, continuing criminal prosecution would serve no purpose. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the entire criminal proceedings were quashed.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for offences under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be quashed on the basis of a compromise/settlement between the parties.
Whether the court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside a cognizance order and charge‑sheet when the dispute is private and compensation has been returned to the State.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)Dha, 3(1)(r)

Subjects

compromise
settlement
quash of criminal proceedings
inherent jurisdiction
SC/ST Act
IPC offences
private dispute
cognizance order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4668 of 2024

Virendra And 10 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhinav Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Durgesh Kumar Pandey, G.A.

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Compliance affidavit filed, today in Court, on behalf of opposite party
no.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the
chargesheet dated 10.10.2019 as well as cognizance order dated
22.10.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj in Special
Session Trial No.152 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Virendra & Ors.), arising
out of Case Crime No.614 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323/149,
504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)Dha SC/ST Act, P.S.- Soraon,
District- Prayagraj.

4. The only prayer is for quashing the charge-sheet and cognizance order.
It is contended that as the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled
the matter amicably, therefore, proceedings with the case is nothing but
futile.

5. This Court by its order dated 2.7.2024 directed the court concerned to
verify the compromise. In compliance of the order dated 2.7.2024, copy
of the verified compromise dated 29.7.2024 has been transmitted to this
Court.

6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submit that he has no objection
in case the cognizance order is set aside and charge-sheet is quashed in
CRLA No. 4668 of 2024
2

the light of the compromise/settlement between the parties. He further
submits that the compensation of Rs.75,000/- provided to the opposite
party nos.2 has already been returned to the State Exchequer and the
receipt of challan has been annexed with the compliance affidavit as
annexure no.1.

7. It is admitted and contended by the respondents that essentially the
dispute is private in nature further that in case proceeding is quashed, the
interest of society is not likely to be affected.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgments
of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
[2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC
Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of
Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003
(4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4)
SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I.
and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others,
2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5)
SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and
another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P
and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others
Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal
Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and
Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409.

9. Learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been
entered into between the parties and now the opposite parties does not
want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

10. Since both the parties to the dispute have arrived at a compromise and
the compensation of Rs.75,000/- provided to the opposite party no.2 has
already been refunded to the State and the receipt of challan has been
annexed with the compliance affidavit as annexure no.1, in such a
situation, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass a suitable order as
CRLA No. 4668 of 2024
3

may be necessary the larger interest of the parties.

11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that no
purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the
trial court and hence, the entire proceedings in Special Session Trial
No.152 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Virendra & Ors.), arising out of Case
Crime No.614 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)Dha SC/ST Act, P.S.- Soraon, District-
Prayagraj are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.

12. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.

13. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the instant order to
the court concerned through District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj by e-
mail/FAX within a week.

(Santosh Rai,J.)
September 8, 2026
RA

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…