Allahabad High Court
SUNIL KUMAR CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The High Court quashed the charge‑sheet and cognizance order on account of the parties' compromise, thereby disposing of the appeal in favour of the appellant.
Summary
The appellant Sunil Kumar Chauhan appealed against a charge‑sheet dated 20‑01‑2026 and a cognizance order dated 25‑03‑2026 issued by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and related statutes. Both parties asserted that the dispute had been amicably settled by a compromise on 30‑05‑2026, and the trial court had verified this compromise in a report dated 02‑07‑2026. The High Court accepted the compromise as part of the record and, on that basis, quashed the charge‑sheet and the cognizance order. Consequently, the criminal appeal was disposed of in favour of the appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between the parties in a case instituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can bar the continuation of criminal proceedings and justify quashing the charge‑sheet and cognizance order.
- Whether the verification report of the trial court confirming the compromise is sufficient to set aside the earlier orders.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 85
- D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
- S.C./S.T. Act — s. 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(V)(ka)
Subjects
- compromise
- quash
- charge-sheet
- cognizance order
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- criminal appeal
- settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6349 of 2026
Sunil Kumar Chauhan
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jitendra Singh, Sarita, Vinod Kumar
Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dashrath Ahirwar, G.A., Ganesh Mani,
Shyam Sunder Pandey, Sugandha Yadav
Court No. - 90
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
Shyam Sundar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2,
and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned charge-
sheet dated 20.01.2026 and the impugned cognizance order dated
25.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge,
S.C./S.T. Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna, in
Sessions Trial No. 1213 of 2026 (State Vs. Sunil Kumar Chauhan), arising
out of Case Crime No. 357 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 and
351(3) of the B.N.S., Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act and Sections 3(1)(d),
3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(V)(ka) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khadda,
District Kushinagar.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for opposite party
no. 2 jointly submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably
settled and that a compromise has been entered into between them on
30.05.2026. They further submit that pursuant to the order dated 02.07.2026
passed by this Court, the report of the learned trial court verifying the
compromise has been received and is taken on record.
4. The compromise shall form part of the record.
5. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties and the report
CRLA No. 6349 of 2026
2
of the learned trial court verifying the same, the impugned charge-sheet
dated 20.01.2026 and the impugned cognizance order dated 25.03.2026
passed in the aforesaid Sessions Trial are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is finally disposed of.
September 29, 2026
M. Tarik
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…