State of U.P. and Another v. Party

: Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, G.A. : Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned counsel for the opposite party no.2; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 28.09.2023 as well as cognizance /summoning order dated

31.10.2023, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18, Basti and entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No.839 of 2024, (State versus Dhirendra), arising out of Case Crime No.168 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kalwari, District Basti, pending before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bastion, on the basis of compromise dated

18.02.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 as well as injured have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into compromise and instant application filed for quashing the entire proceedings pending against the applicant on the basis of It compromise dated 20.08.2024. informant/opposite party no.2 daughter committed suicide on account of is alleged the FIR applicant's persuasion. Counsel for the applicant further submits that opposite party no.2 is father of deceased and he does not want to prosecute the case against the applicant. This Court vide order dated 27.06.2025, directed both the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the compromise. The order dated 27.06.2025, passed by this Court is quoted below :- 2 A482 No. 574 of 2025 "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 28.09.2023 and cognizance order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Session Case No. 839/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 168/2023, under Section 306 IPC, P.S.- Kalwari, District- Basti, pending before the court of learned District and Session Judge, Basti on the basis of compromise dated 18.02.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the issuance of the summoning order, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the compromise.

5. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

6. List after two months.

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

4. In pursuance of the order dated 27.06.2025 both the parties have appeared before the trial court on 29.07.2025 and the trial court identified and verified the applicant and informant through their counsel and also compromise application, thereafter the verification report dated 07.08.2025 forwarded by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Basti to this Court which is available on record. On perusal of material evidence collected by I.O., no offence under the alleges section is made out. Only on account of suspicion and a letter recovered the applicant has been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute 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 applicant and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on. 3 A482 No. 574 of 2025

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that there is no evidence against the applicant under the aforesaid section and now informant has compromised the matter. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

6. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble 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. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

9. Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 28.09.2023 as well as cognizance /summoning order dated 31.10.2023, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18, Basti and entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No.839 of 2024, (State versus Dhirendra), arising out of Case Crime No.168 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kalwari, District Basti, is hereby quashed.

10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed. September 22, 2025 I.A.Siddiqui (Deepak Verma,J.)

: Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, G.A. : Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned counsel for the opposite party no.2; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 28.09.2023 as well as cognizance /summoning order dated

31.10.2023, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18, Basti and entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No.839 of 2024, (State versus Dhirendra), arising out of Case Crime No.168 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kalwari, District Basti, pending before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bastion, on the basis of compromise dated

18.02.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 as well as injured have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into compromise and instant application filed for quashing the entire proceedings pending against the applicant on the basis of It compromise dated 20.08.2024. informant/opposite party no.2 daughter committed suicide on account of is alleged the FIR applicant's persuasion. Counsel for the applicant further submits that opposite party no.2 is father of deceased and he does not want to prosecute the case against the applicant. This Court vide order dated 27.06.2025, directed both the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the compromise. The order dated 27.06.2025, passed by this Court is quoted below :- 2 A482 No. 574 of 2025 "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 28.09.2023 and cognizance order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Session Case No. 839/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 168/2023, under Section 306 IPC, P.S.- Kalwari, District- Basti, pending before the court of learned District and Session Judge, Basti on the basis of compromise dated 18.02.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the issuance of the summoning order, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the compromise.

5. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

6. List after two months.

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

4. In pursuance of the order dated 27.06.2025 both the parties have appeared before the trial court on 29.07.2025 and the trial court identified and verified the applicant and informant through their counsel and also compromise application, thereafter the verification report dated 07.08.2025 forwarded by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Basti to this Court which is available on record. On perusal of material evidence collected by I.O., no offence under the alleges section is made out. Only on account of suspicion and a letter recovered the applicant has been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute 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 applicant and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on. 3 A482 No. 574 of 2025

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that there is no evidence against the applicant under the aforesaid section and now informant has compromised the matter. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

6. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble 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. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

9. Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 28.09.2023 as well as cognizance /summoning order dated 31.10.2023, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18, Basti and entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No.839 of 2024, (State versus Dhirendra), arising out of Case Crime No.168 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kalwari, District Basti, is hereby quashed.

10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed. September 22, 2025 I.A.Siddiqui (Deepak Verma,J.)