Allahabad High Court

SONU ALI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The court held that, in view of a verified compromise and the private character of the dispute, the criminal proceedings under the cited provisions are to be quashed.

Summary

The appellants filed an appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act seeking to quash the chargesheet and summoning order in a criminal case arising from alleged offences under Sections 87 and 70(1) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. The parties had reached a verified compromise, which was transmitted to the court. The respondent had no objection to setting aside the proceedings, stating that the dispute was private and that no public interest would be harmed. Relying on several Supreme Court precedents permitting compromise in private disputes, the High Court held that continuing the trial would serve no purpose. Consequently, the entire proceedings were quashed and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Can a compromise between the parties justify quashing a chargesheet and summoning order under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act?
Does the private nature of the dispute and absence of public interest permit termination of criminal proceedings under the cited statutes?
Are the offences alleged under Sections 87, 70(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act amenable to settlement by compromise?

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 70(1), 87
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(1), 3(2)(5)

Subjects

compromise
quash of chargesheet
Section 14A
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act
private dispute
public interest
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6228 of 2026

Sonu Ali And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Devendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sanjay Kumar Asthana, G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent
no.2 and learned A.G.A. 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 No.68 of 2025 dated
29.04.2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.05.2025 passed
by the learned Special Sessions Judge/S.C.-S.T. Act, District Amroha as
well as the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 291 of 2025 (State vs.
Ayan and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2025, under
Sections 87, 70(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station
Rajabpur, District Amroha.

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 11.08.2026 directed the court concerned to
verify the compromise. In compliance of the order dated 11.08.2026, copy of
the verified compromise dated 19.08.2026 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.
CRLA No. 6228 of 2026
2

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. As per report of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Sessions Judge/S.C.-
S.T. Act, District Amroha, victim/opposite party no.2 has not received any
amount from the State.

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 Sessions Case No.
291 of 2025 (State vs. Ayan and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 75
of 2025, under Sections 87, 70(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act,
Police Station Rajabpur, District Amroha are hereby quashed in terms of the
compromise.

11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.

12. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the instant order to
the court concerned through District and Sessions Judge,Amroha by e-
mail/FAX.

September 11, 2026
Asha (Santosh Rai,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…