Raj Kumar Gautam Alias Raj Kumar And 3 v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record. By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the impugned charge sheet no.237 of 2024 dated 26.7.2024 of Case Crime No.545 of 2023, under Section 323, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. P.S. Gangaghat, District Unnao as well as impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 14.8.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao in Case/C.N.P. No.UPUNO-40281922024, State Vs. Raj Kumar and others, along with entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Unnao, against the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 20.1.2025 which has been verified by the learned court below on 29.1.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to certain misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants.

He added that later on, the parties sat together and have amicably settled their disputes, which has been reduced in writing on 20.1.2025. Thereafter, the applicants filed an Application U/S 482 No.144 of 2025 wherein this Court has directed the court below to verify the said compromise deed and in compliance thereof, the compromise deed was verified on 29.1.2025. He submits that now there is no dispute in between the parties and they have settled their dispute. He submits that further criminal proceedings in the instant matter would amount to harassment and, thus, the instant criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.545 of 2023 may be quashed. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the opposite party no.2 has no grievance, hence, criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submissions aforesaid. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 20.1.2025 and said compromise has been verified on 29.1.2025 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal proceedings relating to Case Crime No.545 of 2023. In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 20.1.2025 and no grievance remains to be agitated and, as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008) 9 SCC 677; Manoj Sharma Vs.