Allowed¶30

Rajeev Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 May 2026A482/10398/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise; Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent powers; Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC; verified settlement dated 15.09.2022; key prosecution witness turning hostile; bleak chances of conviction; Gian Singh guidelines; waste of judicial time and high pendency; costs imposed for errant litigant behaviour; High Court Legal Services Committee; Moradabad; B.S. Joshi; Narinder Singh; Yogendra Yadav; Parbatbhai Aahir.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9760 of 2019 (State Vs. Rajeev and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 287 of 2019, quashed; application allowed subject to deposit of costs of Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. 2,000 on each party) before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within three weeks. ¶30

Rajeev Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9760 of 2019 (State Vs. Rajeev and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 287 of 2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, should be quashed in exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Taking the compromise between the parties cumulatively with the legal position laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Yogendra Yadav and Parbatbhai Aahir, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9760 of 2019 are quashed.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

With the compromise verified by the court below and opposite party no. 2, who would be the key prosecution witness, having declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial, the chances of conviction being bleak, continuance of the trial would largely be a waste of the learned court below's time.

¶21

Key takeaways

The 482 Cr.P.C. application is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. 2,000 on each party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within three weeks.ratio¶30
Though no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue, no firm conclusion is reached at this stage as to the complete falsity of the allegations made against the applicants.obiter¶30
Cost was imposed as a reminder and warning to society that courts cannot remain mute spectators to unscrupulous and errant behaviour, and was directed to the Legal Services Committee, which works for litigants for whom court procedures are difficult to afford.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9760 of 2019 (State v. Rajeev and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 287 of 2019 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Chhajlet, District Moradabad, on the basis of a compromise between the parties verified by the court below on 15.09.2022 pursuant to this Court's order dated 27.05.2022. Relying on B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Yogendra Yadav and Parbatbhai Aahir, the court held that with opposite party no. 2 - the key prosecution witness - declaring his unequivocal intent to turn hostile and the chances of conviction bleak, continuance of the trial would largely be a waste of judicial time. The application was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. 2,000 on each party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within three weeks; the court clarified that no firm conclusion was reached on the complete falsity of the allegations.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10398 of 2022

¶3

Rajeev Kumar And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

		Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Rajneesh Kumar Shankar Tripathi	Sharma, Vinod
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 82

¶6

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9760 of 2019 (State Vs. Rajeev and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 287 of 2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chhajlet, District Moradabad, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Moradabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier this Court vide order dated 27.05.2022 directed the parties to appear before the court concerned for verification of the compromise arrived at between the parties, in pursuance thereof the learned Additional Chief Judicial vide its letter dated 17.09.2022 has informed the Court that the said compromise has been verified vide order dated 15.09.2022. The said report sent by the court concerned is on the record. He further submits that the FIR had come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and have settled their dispute amicably in writing, which has also been verified by the learned court below on 15.09.2022. They realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.

¶10

Learned learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

¶11

It is contended that in view of the said compromise, the pending proceedings before the court below be quashed in the light of the

¶12

A482 No. 10398 of 2022

¶13

¶14

Judgments of Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675 , and that of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303 .

¶15

The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;

¶16

"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put

¶17

A482 No. 10398 of 2022

¶18

¶19

accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their differences through compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶21

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and appear to have settled their real disputes amicably, which has also been verified by the Court below, copy of which report is on record. Thus, it further appears that the opposite party no.2, who would be the key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.

¶22

The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of the present case and other similar cases present where, though allegations made in the FIR do contain ingredients of an offence. However, in view such settlement having been reached, the chances of conviction are not only bleak but if such trials are allowed to continue along with all other trials that lie piled up in practically all criminal courts in the state, the continuance of trials in cases such as the instant case may only work to the huge disadvantage of other cases where litigants are crying for justice.

¶23

In normal circumstances, the court would be loathe to accept some of such compromise arrangements. Sadly, even that course does not commend itself to the court in view of the high pendency of criminal

¶24

A482 No. 10398 of 2022

¶25

¶26

cases and the high propensity to lie and state falsehood that appears to be otherwise rampant in the society - where desire to take revenge appears to sometime over shadow the pure pursuit of justice; where winning a legal battle matters more than doing the right thing; where teaching a lesson to ones adversary often appears to be the only purpose of instituting a criminal proceeding.

¶27

Thus, looking at the prevalent tendencies in the society, a more pragmatic, and less technical approach commends to the court - to let some criminal prosecutions such as the present case be dropped, for the sake of more effective, efficient and proper trial in other cases where the litigants appear to be serious about their rights and more consistent in their approach.

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties and taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303, Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶29

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus may be allowed , subject however to payment of cost to be deposited by the parties before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today. Such cost has to be imposed to let the parties (in this case) in particular and the society in general know that the courts cannot remain a mute spectator to unscrupulous and errant behaviour by its members. A society that will allow its members to misuse its courts, will ultimately suffer and pay a huge cost. Litigants, both genuine and bogus, will always continue to stand in the same queue. The courts have no mechanism to pre-identify and distinguish between the genuine and the bogus litigant. That becomes known only after hearing is concluded in a case. Hearing requires time. In fact, even if the courts were to take punitive action against a bogus litigant, then, being bound by rules of procedure and fairness, such cases would require more time to be devoted to them than a case of two genuine litigants.

¶30

In such circumstances, though no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any further, however, no firm conclusion may be reached, at this stage, as to complete falsity of the allegations made against the applicants. The present application 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed, subject however to payment of cost Rs. 4,000/- (2,000 on each party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks

¶31

A482 No. 10398 of 2022

¶32

¶33

from today.

¶34

The Legal Services Committee exists and works for the benefit of those litigants for whom court procedures are difficult to afford. It provides a crucial and essential service to the society itself. It thus appears proper to direct payment of the amount of cost to the Legal Services Committee, as a reminder and warning to the society and its members to introspect and reflect at their actions and deeds and also at the consequences that follow.

¶35

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶36

May 7, 2026 Mustaqeem.

¶37

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar and 3 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

Similar cases

Narvedeshwar Gupta Vs State of U.P and Another

Sanju and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nanki Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sukkar Vs State of U.P.

Kartik Sehgal vs State of U.P. and Another

Din Dayal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another