HARIOM AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 923 of 2026

Hariom And 3 Others
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)                :    Ram Shiromani Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)               :    G.A., Krishna Kant Yadav

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in court by learned counsel for the
appellants is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri
Krishna Kant Yadav, learned counsel for opposite paty no.2 and learned
A.G.A. and perused the record.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T.
Act by the appellants to set aside the summoning order dated 07.06.2023
passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sambhal at Chandausi in
Complaint Case No.124 of 2022 (Neetu vs. Hariom and others) under
Sections 354, 504, 506 and 379 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, P.S.- Hayatnagar, District- Sambhal.

4. In the present case, four accused persons have been summoned, namely,
Hariom, Jasvant, Rahul and Ankit (the appellants herein) and the
compromise deed has also been filed between the aforesaid appellants and
the complainant Neetu.

5. The only prayer is to set aside the summoning order dated 07.06.2023. 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.

6. This Court by its order dated 06.05.2026 directed the court concerned to
verify the compromise. In compliance of the said order, learned counsel for
the appellants has submitted a certified copy of the verified compromise
                                                           CRLA No. 923 of 2026
                                  2


dated 01.07.2026 by way of supplementary affidavit.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that he has no
objection in case summoning order is set aside in the light of the
compromise/settlement between the parties. He further submits that no
compensation has been received by opposite party no.2 in this case, which
fact can also be ascertained from the order of the court concerned dated
01.07.2026 verifying the compromise.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Since both the parties to the dispute have arrived at a compromise and no
compensation has been received by O.P No.2, as duly verified by the order
of the court concerned dated 01.07.2026, in such a situation, the Court has
inherent jurisdiction to pass a suitable order as may be necessary the larger
interest of the parties.

12. 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 Complaint Case
No.124 of 2022 (Neetu vs. Hariom and others) under Sections 354, 504, 506
                                                                                           CRLA No. 923 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    and 379 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act,
                                    P.S.- Hayatnagar, District- Sambhal, are hereby quashed in terms of the
                                    compromise.

                                    13. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.

                                    14. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the instant order to
                                    the court concerned through District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal at
                                    Chandausi by e-mail/FAX within 48 hours.



                                                                                             (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 14, 2026
                                    Ankit.




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