Allahabad High Court
YOGENDRA SINGH ALIAS HANDRE AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The court held that where a genuine compromise between the parties is verified by the trial court, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a Special Session Trial (No. 55 of 2023) arising from a complaint under IPC sections 323, 504, 506 and the SC/ST Act, on the ground that the parties had amicably settled the dispute. The Special Judge verified the compromise on 14 August 2025, and the opposite party expressed no intention to pursue the case or give evidence. The court examined the settled law that criminal proceedings may be quashed where a valid compromise is verified, citing several Supreme Court decisions. Finding the compromise genuine and verified, the court allowed the application and ordered the entire criminal proceedings to be quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal case pending under the IPC and the SC/ST Act can be quashed on the basis of a court‑verified compromise between the parties under Section 482 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceedings
- Section 482 CrPC
- SC/ST Act
- settlement
- criminal miscellaneous application
- special session trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24760 of 2025
Yogendra Singh Alias Handre And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Tarun Jha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohinish Agnihotri
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Tarun Jha, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vishvam
Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohinish Agnihotri, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and
perused the record.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by
the applicants- Yogendra Singh @ Handre and Raghvendra, with the prayer to
allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning
order dated 10.11.2023 in Special Session Trial no. 55 of 2023 (Ramu @
Raghuveer Rajak Vs. Yogendra @ Handre), arising out of Complaint Case
No. 60 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and 3(1) da dha of
SC/ST Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun
at Orai, Police Station Jalaun, District- Jalaun on basis of compromise, with a
further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid case be stayed during the
pendency of the present application.
4. The office vide its report dated 04.05.2026, reported that a report from the
Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC / ST Act), Jalaun at
Orai has been received, wherein it has been stated that compromise between
the parties has been verified vide its report dated 14.08.2025. The said report
also states that as per the report dated 11.08.2025 of the District Social
Welfare Officer, Jalaun at Orai no proposal for any compensation was
forwarded to be paid to the first informant / opposite party no.2.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have settled the
dispute amicably out of court and on the basis of compromise the applicants
filed the present Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court
NA528 No. 24760 of 2025
2
in which an order for verification of the compromise was passed on
16.07.2025. It is argued that in compliance of the said order, the parties have
filed the order of this Court along with compromise application before the
concerned court for its verification after which the concerned court has verified
the said compromise vide its order dated 14.08.2025. It is argued that the
opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the trial
court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the applicants and
therefore the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of
compromise between the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the
State could not dispute the fact that the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties which was duly verified by the concerned trial court.
7. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1)
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC
675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9
SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4)
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and
others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6)
Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs.
State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in
which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.
8. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the
subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this
Court to quash the entire proceedings of case as prayed for by the applicants.
9. The present application is allowed.
10. The entire proceedings of the said case are hereby quashed.
May 5, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…