Ram Niwas and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ram Niwas and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim relief granted: no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant till the next date (10.07.2025, listed as fresh); final question of quashing deferred to the trial court's verification of the compromise and its report to the High Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.40 of 2013 (State Vs. Suraj and others) and the charge-sheet dated 04.09.2012 should be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 13.12.2024 entered into between the parties.

Court's answer

Whether a compromise has actually taken place can at best be ascertained by the trial court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

Ratio / Principle

Both parties are directed to appear before the court below with the copy of the compromise deed and a certified copy of this order.

Key takeaways

The trial court is expected to fix a date for verification of the compromise, ensure the parties' presence, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the informant, preferably within four weeks, and while verifying the compromise record the parties' statements on whether all terms of the original compromise deed have been fulfilled.ratio¶11
Upon due verification of the compromise, the court below may pass an appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Manju Rani Chauhan, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 9027 of 2025, order dated 13.05.2025. Filed to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.40 of 2013 (State Vs. Suraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No.501 of 2012, Sections 307, 504 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur, pending before Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Shahjahanpur, together with the charge-sheet dated 04.09.2012, on the basis of a compromise dated 13.12.2024 between the parties (counsel invoking Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303). The court held that whether a compromise has taken place can at best be ascertained by the trial court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the parties' presence before it. Both parties were directed to appear before the court below with the compromise deed and a certified copy of the order; the trial court to verify the compromise, hear the informant, record statements on fulfilment of the terms of the compromise deed, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably within four weeks, thereafter sending a report to the High Court. Case listed fresh on 10.07.2025; till then no coercive measure to be taken against the applicant.

Court No. - 52

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9027 of 2025

Applicant :- Ram Niwas And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mahendra Pandey,G.A.

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mahendra Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.40 of 2013 (State Vs. Suraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No.501 of 2012, under Sections 307, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Shahjahanpur as well as charge-sheet dated 04.09.2012, on the basis of compromise dated 13.12.2024.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. The copy of the said compromise/mutual deed, filed before the court below, is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicant would be a 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.

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 applicant.

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.

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, after hearing the informant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks 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?

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

Put up this case on 10.07.2025, as fresh.

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

Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Abhishek Singh

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