Siddharth Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86792

Court No. - 52

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10769 of 2025

Applicant :- Siddharth Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Virendra Nath Pandey,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. R.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Virendra Nath Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Ms. Kriti Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present 528 BNSS application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.1301 of 2016 (State Vs. Rajendra Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1096 of 2014, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Deoria, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Deoria on the basis of compromise dated 07.03.2025.

¶9

On 04.04.2025, the following order was passed:-

¶10

"1. Mr. Virendra Nath Pandey, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶11

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶12

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.1301 of 2016 (State vs. Rajendra Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1096 of 2014, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Deoria, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Deoria, on the basis of compromise.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In this regard, a compromise deed has been filed before this Court, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.6 of this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court and will be abuse of process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶14

5. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

¶15

applicants.

¶16

6. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶17

7. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

¶18

8. Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

¶19

9. Put up this case on 05.05.2025, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Virendra Nath Pandey as counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶20

10. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Deoria shall also verify and send a report to this Court as to whether the opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, same has been returned or not.

¶21

11. Learned A.G.A. as well as Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into compliance of this order.

¶22

12. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

¶23

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 04.04.2025, a compromise verification report from C.J.M., Deoria is kept on record as is evident from the office report dated 03.05.2025. As the compensation was not returned by the victim, therefore, on 05.05.2025, the following order was passed:

¶24

"As per the report placed by District Magistrate, Deoria, the victim has not returned the compensation amount till date.

¶25

This Court directs that the opposite party no.2 shall deposit the compensation amount before District Social Welfare Officer, Deoria, who shall place a report through District Magistrate, Deoria before this Court by the next date.

¶26

Mr. Virendra Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is directed to communicate about compliance of this order to opposite party no.2 otherwise strict order will be passed against opposite party no.2 in these circumstances.

¶27

Put up this case on 22.05.2025, as fresh.

¶28

Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into compliance of this order.

¶29

The court concerned shall also send a report in this regard before this Court by the next date.

¶30

Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

¶31

In compliance of the order dated 05.05.2025, a report from the District Magistrate, Deoria dated 19.05.2025 is placed on record as is evident from office report dated 21.05.2025. The letter of C.J.M., Deoria dated 02.05.2025 is placed along with the order dated 01.05.2025, by which the compromise between the parties has been verified. The letter of District Magistrate, Deoria dated 19.05.2025 mentions about the fact that the compensation has been returned by the victim. The demand draft of Rs.22,500/- by each victim has been placed to show the return of compensation. The photo-copy of the demand draft has also been annexed at page 7 of the short-counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2.

¶32

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

¶33

Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶34

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶35

(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶36

(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶37

(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶38

(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 ,

¶39

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020 , decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶40

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already

¶41

settled their dispute.

¶42

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No.1301 of 2016 (State Vs. Rajendra Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1096 of 2014, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Deoria, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed .

¶43

The application is, accordingly, allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith.

¶45

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 CS/-

¶46

Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Siddharth Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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