Allahabad High Court

HIRA MANI DEVI AND 3 OTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The High Court held that where parties have entered into a verified compromise and compensation has been returned, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under the Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Summary

The appellants filed an appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act seeking to quash a chargesheet and summoning order relating to offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Both parties had reached a verified compromise, with the compensation of Rs.75,000 returned to the State. The trial court was directed to verify the compromise, which was duly done. Relying on several Supreme Court precedents, the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and held that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no purpose. Consequently, the entire proceedings were quashed and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a verified compromise and return of compensation justify quashing criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act and IPC offences.
Whether the High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction to set aside a chargesheet and summoning order in such circumstances.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 427, 452, 504, 506
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(1), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)

Subjects

compromise
settlement
quash of criminal proceedings
SC/ST Act
Inherent jurisdiction
IPC offences
compensation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5971 of 2021

Hira Mani Devi And 3 Other
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Nikil Pathak, Santosh Kumar Tiwari,
Sunil Kumar Mishra, Udai Shankar
Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Srivastava, Ashish Kumar
Gupta, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Nikil Pathak, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T.
Act by the appellants challenging the chargesheet 28.02.2021 and
summoning order dated 07.07.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST
Act), Varanasi in Case Crime No.13 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506,
452 and 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Jansa,
District- Varanasi.

3. The only prayer is for quashing the chargesheet and summoning 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.

4. This Court by its order dated 08.07.2026 directed the court concerned to
verify the compromise. In compliance of the said order, copy of the verified
compromise dated 28.07.2026 has been transmitted to this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that he has no
objection in case summoning order is set aside and charghesheet is quashed
in the light of the compromise/settlement between the parties. He further
submits that the compensation provided to the opposite party no.2 has
already been returned to the State, which fact is ascertained from the copy of
CRLA No. 5971 of 2021
2

the verified compromise deed, in which it is mentioned that the
compensation of Rs.75,000/- has already been returned.

6. It is admitted and contended by the opposite party no.2 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.

7. 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], Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15)
SCC 235, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677,
Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others
(1991) 4 SCC 584 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India
(1998) 4 SCC 409.

8. Learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been
entered into between the parties and now the opposite party no.2 does not
want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

9. 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
(Rs.75,000/-) has already been refunded to the State, as duly verified by the
letter of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mau dated 28.07.2026, in such a
situation, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass a suitable order as may
be necessary the larger interest of the parties.

10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgments referred above 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 of Case Crime No.13
of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)
and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Jansa, District- Varanasi are hereby quashed
with respect to the appellants herein, in terms of the compromise.

11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.

12. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the instant order to
CRLA No. 5971 of 2021
3

the court concerned through District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi by e-
mail/FAX within three days.

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

Digitally signed by :-
ANKIT VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…