Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings and cognizance/summoning order in a Sessions case arising from an assault FIR, on the basis of a verified compromise between the parties. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the entire proceedings and summoning order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17260
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28596 of 2024
Applicant :- Savej And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhijeet Singh,Saurabh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gulab Yadav
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
2
persons armed with weapons came on two motorcycles, two of them shot at Parvez, due to which Parvez fell on the ground, the other co-accused attacked him with a sickle (hasia) and caused serious injury. Hearing the noise of the fire-shot, the first informant reached the spot and witnessed the attack, meanwhile 6 accused and the applicants fled from the spot threatening him with dire consequences.
5(i). Then the first informant and his brother (Parvej) came to the police station and on the basis of the medical certificate (Majroobi Chitthi), Parvez was immediately taken to Behat Government Hospital from where he was referred to Saharanpur Government Hospital wherein CT scan of the head was conducted, and a fracture in the frontal bone was found.
5(ii). As per medical report of the injured Parvej, lacerated wound size 2.5 cm x 0.3 cm back deep top of the head; lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.3 cm back deep on forehead 12 cm above right ear.
3
relating to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code as under; (SCC, p. 653, para 16)
"16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is noncompoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent poser of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family or the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal Cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions
4
with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would case oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offence involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Ishan
Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Should criminal proceedings under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the summoning order be quashed on the basis of a verified compromise between the parties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & anotherRelied on¶6
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao AngreRelied on¶7
(1988) 1 SCC 692 · Who else cites this
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat & anotherRelied on¶8
(2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Savej
Another
State of U.P.
Opposite Party no. 2
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
