CRLA/2200/2026 of RAJ BAHADUR @ GULKAI AND 4 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2200 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. 2. This appeal has been filed with the prayer to quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 3rd February, 2025 as well as entire proceedings of  Sessions Case No. 227 of 2025 (State Vs. Raj Bahadur @ Gulkai & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2024, under Sections 333, 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 115 (2), 352, 351 (3) and 324 (2) of B.N.S. and Sections 3 (2) (5A), 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of  S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Garautha, District-Jhansi pending in the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T.), Jhansi on the basis of compromised so arrived at between the parties. 3. While entertaining the present criminal appeal, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed following order on 26th February, 2026:  "1. Learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel for informant and Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for State are present. 2. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that the parties have settled their dispute by entering into compromise. 3. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within three weeks from today and ti file their compromise before it. 4. Learned Trial Court is directed to verify the compromise deed and will submit its reply on or before the next date fixed. 5. Put up as fresh on 24.3.2026. 6. Till then the further proceedings of Session Case No. 277 of 2025 (State Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ran Jeet Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vijay Bahadur, G.A. Raj Bahadur @ Gulkai And 4 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Vs. Raj Bahadur alias Gulkai and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2024, under Sections 333, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(2) B.N.S. and 3(2)5A, and 3(1), r, s SC/ST Act, at Police Station Garautha, District Jhansi shall remain stayed." 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order,  the trial court vide its letter dated 13th March, 2026 informed the Court that after appearance of the appellant and opposite parties appeared before the trial court, the trial court vide order dated 11th March, 2026 has verified the compromise so arrived at between the parties and the trial court identifies the same. The letter dated 13th March, 2026 is on record along with order-sheet.  5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the compromised so arrived at between the parties and the same has also been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be may be quashed by this Court. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State and the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. Today, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has filed short counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the informant/opposite party no.2 has not taken any compensation from the State exchequer. The short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.   7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: 1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another ; (2003)4 SCC 675, 2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, 3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, 5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, 8. 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. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the CRLA No. 2200 of 2026 2 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 settled their dispute. 10. Accordingly, the cognizance/summoning order dated 3rd February, 2025 as well as entire proceedings of  Sessions Case No. 227 of 2025 (State Vs. Raj Bahadur @ Gulkai & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2024, under Sections 333, 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 115 (2), 352, 351 (3) and 324 (2) of B.N.S. and Sections 3 (2) (5A), 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of  S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Garautha, District-Jhansi pending in the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T.), Jhansi are hereby quashed. 11. The present appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. May 6, 2026 Sushil/- CRLA No. 2200 of 2026 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad