Indrajeet and two others v. State of U.P. another) before this Court to quash the proceedings as both the

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

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.60 of 2017 (State Vs. Indrajeet and others) arising out of Case Crime No.172 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Jaunpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and opposite party nos.2 & 3 have amicably settled the dispute out of Court and injury received by the injured are simple in nature but they have compromised the matter in presence of respectable persons of the society and does not want to proceed against the applicants. It is next submitted that the applicants filed 482 Application No.2557 of 2024 (Indrajeet and two others vs. State of U.P. & another) before this Court to quash the proceedings as both the parties have amicably settled the dispute out of the court. This Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 directed the parties to appear before the court below within three weeks for verification of compromise dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure 6 to the application). The order dated 02.04.2024 is being quoted below:- "1. Sri Dewendra Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1 and Sri Dewendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2017 (State Vs. Indrajeet and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 172 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 308 IPC, Police Station Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur on the basis of compromise dated 05.01.2024 entered between the parties.

4. Counsel for the applicants submits that in the alleged incident two persons have received injuries. The said injuries are not serious in nature. Further, during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 05.01.2024 has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the trial court and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

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

7. In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court along with an application for verification of compromise deed so filed as well as a certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. 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 three months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the trial 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.

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

9. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

10. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of."

4. Pursuant to the said order dated 02.04.2024, the parties appeared before the court below and after due verification of the parties and contents of the compromise made between them, the court vide order dated 21.06.2024 has passed the verification order. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-7 with the affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their private and civil dispute 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.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants and opposite party no.2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

7. Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 529, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another; 2017 9 SCC 641, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another; (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2014) Supreme Today 642, the proceedings of Session Trial No.60 of 2017 (State Vs. Indrajeet and others) arising out of Case Crime No.172 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Jaunpur is hereby quashed.

8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 SKD

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

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.60 of 2017 (State Vs. Indrajeet and others) arising out of Case Crime No.172 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Jaunpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and opposite party nos.2 & 3 have amicably settled the dispute out of Court and injury received by the injured are simple in nature but they have compromised the matter in presence of respectable persons of the society and does not want to proceed against the applicants. It is next submitted that the applicants filed 482 Application No.2557 of 2024 (Indrajeet and two others vs. State of U.P. & another) before this Court to quash the proceedings as both the parties have amicably settled the dispute out of the court. This Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 directed the parties to appear before the court below within three weeks for verification of compromise dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure 6 to the application). The order dated 02.04.2024 is being quoted below:- "1. Sri Dewendra Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1 and Sri Dewendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2017 (State Vs. Indrajeet and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 172 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 308 IPC, Police Station Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur on the basis of compromise dated 05.01.2024 entered between the parties.

4. Counsel for the applicants submits that in the alleged incident two persons have received injuries. The said injuries are not serious in nature. Further, during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 05.01.2024 has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the trial court and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

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

7. In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court along with an application for verification of compromise deed so filed as well as a certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. 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 three months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the trial 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.

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

9. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

10. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of."

4. Pursuant to the said order dated 02.04.2024, the parties appeared before the court below and after due verification of the parties and contents of the compromise made between them, the court vide order dated 21.06.2024 has passed the verification order. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-7 with the affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their private and civil dispute 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.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants and opposite party no.2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

7. Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 529, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another; 2017 9 SCC 641, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another; (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2014) Supreme Today 642, the proceedings of Session Trial No.60 of 2017 (State Vs. Indrajeet and others) arising out of Case Crime No.172 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Jaunpur is hereby quashed.

8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 SKD