Allahabad High Court

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant has prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 3529 of 2025 (State vs. Dr. Latif Malik) and quash the charge sheet dated 05.10.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 484 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 118(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Surajpur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and for setting impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar on the basis of compromise/settlement.

4. On the request of applicant relegated the parties to the court below to get the compromise pleaded by the applicant and said to have entered between the parties on 19.03.2025. He next submitted that the trial court has verified the said compromise on 02.07.2025 as per direction of this Court vide order dated 07.05.2025 and a copy of verification order has been filed with present petition, as annexure No.1 to the affidavit alongwith copy 2 NA528 No. 15914 of 2025 of compromise. Therefore, it is prayed that the proceedings of trial court may kindly be quashed in terms of said compromise.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has not raised any objection to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the various pronouncements including the judgments passed in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012, 10 SCC 303], Narindra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1799 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 observed as under:- "15. Considering the law on me point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves:

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that Capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest, its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution 3 NA528 No. 15914 of 2025 has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter compromise, etc."

7. In view of the above, the proceedings of trial court in Case No. 3529 of 2025 (State vs. Dr. Latif Malik) and quash the charge sheet dated 05.10.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 484 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 118(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Surajpur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, the present application is allowed and consequently, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for necessary compliance. September 22, 2025 Anjali (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant has prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 3529 of 2025 (State vs. Dr. Latif Malik) and quash the charge sheet dated 05.10.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 484 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 118(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Surajpur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and for setting impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar on the basis of compromise/settlement.

4. On the request of applicant relegated the parties to the court below to get the compromise pleaded by the applicant and said to have entered between the parties on 19.03.2025. He next submitted that the trial court has verified the said compromise on 02.07.2025 as per direction of this Court vide order dated 07.05.2025 and a copy of verification order has been filed with present petition, as annexure No.1 to the affidavit alongwith copy 2 NA528 No. 15914 of 2025 of compromise. Therefore, it is prayed that the proceedings of trial court may kindly be quashed in terms of said compromise.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has not raised any objection to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the various pronouncements including the judgments passed in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012, 10 SCC 303], Narindra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1799 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 observed as under:- "15. Considering the law on me point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves:

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that Capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest, its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution 3 NA528 No. 15914 of 2025 has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter compromise, etc."

7. In view of the above, the proceedings of trial court in Case No. 3529 of 2025 (State vs. Dr. Latif Malik) and quash the charge sheet dated 05.10.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 484 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 118(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Surajpur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, the present application is allowed and consequently, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for necessary compliance. September 22, 2025 Anjali (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)