High Court

1. Shri Aman Kumar, learned Advocate, has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2, today in Court, which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly and print the his name as the counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned Charge sheet and cognizance order dated 14.10.2020 and 02.01.2021 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 1540 of 2021 (State Vs. Arif Khan) u/s 420 I.P.C. Police Station- Kotwali, District- Bareilly, arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2020 in pursuance of the compromise deed dated 16.08.2023, pending before leared court of C.J.M. Bareilly, U.P.

4. It is submitted that having annoyed with dishonor of cheque, opposite party no.2 has lodged an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 0217 dated 13.06.2020. During course of the proceeding, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. Therefore, present applicant has resorted to remedy by moving Application U/S 482 No. 41195 of 2023 for quashing the criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 07.11.2023, has disposed of the aforesaid application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. relegating the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified with liberty to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing the criminal proceeding on the basis of verification of compromise. For ready reference, order date 07.11.2023 passed by this Court is quoted herein below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance order dated 14.10.2020 and 02.01.2021 as well as entire proceedings of pending case No.1540 of 2021, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Bareilly arising out of case crime No.217 OF 2020.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of compromise deed dated 16.08.2023 has been annexed as Annexure 4 to this affidavit. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

4. Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

5. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below and move an application for compromise along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within four weeks from today. It is expected that Court below may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

6. The Court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

7. For a period of two months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 07.11.2023, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly has passed compromise verification order dated 16.01.2024 with an observation that both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The contents of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have nodded the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified on the consent of the parties. Certified copy of the order dated 16.01.2024 is annexed as Annexure No. 6. For ready reference the same is quoted herein below: "16.01.24 पपश हहआ। पपककर पर यकदद शशकर लकल एशव अभभयपक आररफ खकख मय भवदकन अधधवकक उपसससत आयप। कक पकसर / आररफ खकख बनकम रकजय एशव अनय ( भदनकशक 22.12.23 अभभयपक आररफ खकख कक ओर सप पकसरनकपत अशनदररत चकरक 482 सश0 41195/23 सशबशधधत आपरकधधक वकद सश० भक०दश०सश० सकनक ककतवकलद सकनक धजलक कक पभत बरपलद) कप सकस पकसरनकपत मय शपसपत पसतपत कर मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय कप उपरकक आदपश कप अनपकम मम उभचत आदपश पकररत भकयप जकनप कक यकचनक कक रयद हह। अ०सश० 217/20 मम मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय, इलकहकबकद दकरक पकररत आदपश भद० 07.11.23 अनतररत धकरक 420 मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय कप उपरकक सममकभनत आदपश भद० 07.11.23 कप अनपसकर पसतपत पकरण मम पकककरर कक चकर सपकह कप अनदर भवचकरण नयकयकलय कप समक मय समझझतकमक व मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय कप उपरकक आदपश कक सतयकभपत पभत कप सकस वयभकरत रप सप उपसससत हककर पकसरनकपत पसतपत करनप पर भवचकरण कक समझझतकनकमक कप सतयकपन हपतप एक भतधस भनयत कर समझझतकनकमक कक यसक समभव दक मकह कप अनदर सतयकभपत करनप एशव पकककरर कप बयकन अशभकत करनप कप पशचकत सतयकभपत समझझतकनकमक कक पभत कप सकस आखयक मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय कक पपभषत करनप हपतप भनदरभशत भकयक रयक हह तसक अभगम दक मकह कप धलयप पकसर / अभभयपकरण कप भवरद पपदडक ककयरवकहद पर रकक लरकयद रयद हह। आज भदनकशक 16.01.24 कक वकदद शशकर लकल एशव अभभयपक आररफ खकख नयकयकलय मम मय भवदकन अधधवकक वयभकरत रप सप उपसससत आयप। वकदद शशकर लकल कक भशनकखत उनकप भवदकन अधधवकक शद रकजपनद पकल रकनक दकरक कक रयद तसक अभभयपक आररफ खर कक भवदकन अधधवकक शद मक० आजम खकख दकरक कक रयद। सभद उपसससत भशनकखत उनकप पकककरर कक समझदतकनकमक पढकर सपनकयक व समझकयक रयक, धजनकप दकरक समझझतपनकमम कप कसनर कक सतय बतकयक रयक तसक नयकयकलय कप समक उपसससत हककर कहक रयक भक उनकप मधय अब भकसद भद पककर कक भववकद शपष नहह हह. धजसकक वकदद शशकर लकल एशव अभभयपक आररफ खकख नप नयकयकलय कप समक भदयप रयप अपनप- अपनप शपस बयकनर मप भद कक हह। अतत समझझतकनकमक पकककरर कक सहमभत कप आधकर पर खपलप नयकयकलय मम तसददक भकयक रयक। समझझतकनकमक कक सतयकपन ररपकरर कक पभत मय आदपश मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय कक पपभषत कक जकयप। पतकवलद भदनकशक 05.03.24 कक वकसतप अभगम आदपश पपश हक।"

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

7. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :- "15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

8. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not want to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

10. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

11. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 17.1.2025/Sumit K.

1. Shri Aman Kumar, learned Advocate, has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2, today in Court, which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly and print the his name as the counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned Charge sheet and cognizance order dated 14.10.2020 and 02.01.2021 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 1540 of 2021 (State Vs. Arif Khan) u/s 420 I.P.C. Police Station- Kotwali, District- Bareilly, arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2020 in pursuance of the compromise deed dated 16.08.2023, pending before leared court of C.J.M. Bareilly, U.P.

4. It is submitted that having annoyed with dishonor of cheque, opposite party no.2 has lodged an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 0217 dated 13.06.2020. During course of the proceeding, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. Therefore, present applicant has resorted to remedy by moving Application U/S 482 No. 41195 of 2023 for quashing the criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 07.11.2023, has disposed of the aforesaid application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. relegating the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified with liberty to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing the criminal proceeding on the basis of verification of compromise. For ready reference, order date 07.11.2023 passed by this Court is quoted herein below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance order dated 14.10.2020 and 02.01.2021 as well as entire proceedings of pending case No.1540 of 2021, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Bareilly arising out of case crime No.217 OF 2020.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of compromise deed dated 16.08.2023 has been annexed as Annexure 4 to this affidavit. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

4. Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

5. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below and move an application for compromise along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within four weeks from today. It is expected that Court below may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

6. The Court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

7. For a period of two months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 07.11.2023, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly has passed compromise verification order dated 16.01.2024 with an observation that both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The contents of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have nodded the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified on the consent of the parties. Certified copy of the order dated 16.01.2024 is annexed as Annexure No. 6. For ready reference the same is quoted herein below: "16.01.24 पपश हहआ। पपककर पर यकदद शशकर लकल एशव अभभयपक आररफ खकख मय भवदकन अधधवकक उपसससत आयप। कक पकसर / आररफ खकख बनकम रकजय एशव अनय ( भदनकशक 22.12.23 अभभयपक आररफ खकख कक ओर सप पकसरनकपत अशनदररत चकरक 482 सश0 41195/23 सशबशधधत आपरकधधक वकद सश० भक०दश०सश० सकनक ककतवकलद सकनक धजलक कक पभत बरपलद) कप सकस पकसरनकपत मय शपसपत पसतपत कर मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय कप उपरकक आदपश कप अनपकम मम उभचत आदपश पकररत भकयप जकनप कक यकचनक कक रयद हह। अ०सश० 217/20 मम मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय, इलकहकबकद दकरक पकररत आदपश भद० 07.11.23 अनतररत धकरक 420 मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय कप उपरकक सममकभनत आदपश भद० 07.11.23 कप अनपसकर पसतपत पकरण मम पकककरर कक चकर सपकह कप अनदर भवचकरण नयकयकलय कप समक मय समझझतकमक व मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय कप उपरकक आदपश कक सतयकभपत पभत कप सकस वयभकरत रप सप उपसससत हककर पकसरनकपत पसतपत करनप पर भवचकरण कक समझझतकनकमक कप सतयकपन हपतप एक भतधस भनयत कर समझझतकनकमक कक यसक समभव दक मकह कप अनदर सतयकभपत करनप एशव पकककरर कप बयकन अशभकत करनप कप पशचकत सतयकभपत समझझतकनकमक कक पभत कप सकस आखयक मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय कक पपभषत करनप हपतप भनदरभशत भकयक रयक हह तसक अभगम दक मकह कप धलयप पकसर / अभभयपकरण कप भवरद पपदडक ककयरवकहद पर रकक लरकयद रयद हह। आज भदनकशक 16.01.24 कक वकदद शशकर लकल एशव अभभयपक आररफ खकख नयकयकलय मम मय भवदकन अधधवकक वयभकरत रप सप उपसससत आयप। वकदद शशकर लकल कक भशनकखत उनकप भवदकन अधधवकक शद रकजपनद पकल रकनक दकरक कक रयद तसक अभभयपक आररफ खर कक भवदकन अधधवकक शद मक० आजम खकख दकरक कक रयद। सभद उपसससत भशनकखत उनकप पकककरर कक समझदतकनकमक पढकर सपनकयक व समझकयक रयक, धजनकप दकरक समझझतपनकमम कप कसनर कक सतय बतकयक रयक तसक नयकयकलय कप समक उपसससत हककर कहक रयक भक उनकप मधय अब भकसद भद पककर कक भववकद शपष नहह हह. धजसकक वकदद शशकर लकल एशव अभभयपक आररफ खकख नप नयकयकलय कप समक भदयप रयप अपनप- अपनप शपस बयकनर मप भद कक हह। अतत समझझतकनकमक पकककरर कक सहमभत कप आधकर पर खपलप नयकयकलय मम तसददक भकयक रयक। समझझतकनकमक कक सतयकपन ररपकरर कक पभत मय आदपश मकननदय उचच नयकयकलय कक पपभषत कक जकयप। पतकवलद भदनकशक 05.03.24 कक वकसतप अभगम आदपश पपश हक।"

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

7. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :- "15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

8. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not want to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

10. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

11. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 17.1.2025/Sumit K.