Banwari Lal and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2025A482/39790/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Application U/S 482 No. 39790 of 2024, decided 13.5.2025 by Prashant Kumar, J.; quashing of complaint proceedings on compromise/settlement; Banwari Lal v. State of U.P.; settlement agreement dated 03-10-2024 verified by trial court on 07-01-2025; earlier order dated 06-12-2024 referring matter for verification of compromise; Complaint Case No.533 of 2002; summoning order dated 02.06.2003; Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC; ACJM Court No.09, Aligarh; relies on State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688; Narinder Singh referred within quoted excerpt.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; proceeding of Complaint Case No.533 of 2002, including summoning order dated 02.06.2003, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, set aside. ¶¶18

Banwari Lal and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; proceeding of Complaint Case No.533 of 2002, including summoning order dated 02.06.2003, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, set aside.

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceeding of Complaint Case No.533 of 2002, including the summoning order dated 02.06.2003 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, is liable to be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the amicable settlement/compromise between the parties.

¶¶17

Court's answer

The parties arrived at a settlement/compromise deed dated 03-10-2024, duly verified by the learned trial court on 07-01-2025, whereby they settled all disputes and differences amicably and did not want to prosecute the pending cases against each other.

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

Since the parties had amicably settled their dispute before the trial court, as apparent from the Settlement Agreement dated 03-10-2024 placed on the record, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was liable to be allowed (following the principles laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688).

¶¶17

Key takeaways

The proceeding of Complaint Case No.533 of 2002, including the summoning order dated 02.06.2003 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.09, Aligarh, was set aside.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise — Section 482 Cr.P.C. — dispute between applicants and opposite party no.2 settled by settlement agreement dated 03-10-2024, duly verified by the learned trial court on 07-01-2025; A.G.A. for the State and opposite party no.2 did not dispute the compromise — relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, on quashing proceedings on the basis of settlement, the application was allowed and the proceeding of Complaint Case No.533 of 2002, including summoning order dated 02.06.2003 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.09, Aligarh, was set aside.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78482

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39790 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Banwari Lal And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,Shireesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Shireesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicants, Shri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that there was some dispute between the applicants and opposite party no.2. As the applicant wished to settle the dispute by way of compromise, this Court vide order dated 06-12-2024 referred the matter for verification of compromise.

¶8

From perusal of record, it transpires that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties and they have entered into a settlement agreement on 03-102024. The settlement/compromise deed has been duly verified by the learned trial court on 07-01-2025, which has been enclosed along with the report of the compromise and placed on the record. As per the aforesaid agreement, parties have settled all the disputes and differences amicably and they do not want to prosecute the pending cases against each other.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State and opposite party no. 2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:-

¶11

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:

¶12

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

¶13

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶14

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

¶15

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

¶16

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

¶17

In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute before the trial court, which is apparent from the Settlement Agreement dated 03-10-2024 placed on the record, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.

¶18

Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceeding of Complaint Case No.533 of 2002, including summoning order dated 02.06.2003, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.09, Aligarh are hereby set aside.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.5.2025 S.P.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Banwari Lal and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banwari Lal and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Babadin Singh and 2 Others vs Ram Sunder Singh and 3 Others

Smt. Babita Gupta vs Anandeshwar Agro Food Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Anil Kumar Gupta and Another

Tara Singh vs Shiv Kumari and 4 Others

Deepak Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prithviraj Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Verma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another