High Court · 2025

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

2. The present 482 application has been filed to quash the charge- sheet dated 28.03.2023, summoning order dated 22.06.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1293 of 2023 (State vs.Mudit Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.238 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Instant application has filed to quash the proceeding on account of compromise entered between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute in terims of compromise. It is next submitted that the applicants filed 482 application No. 6480 of 2024 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024 directed the parties to appear before the court below for verification of compromise dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure 3 to the affidavit) within three weeks. The order dated 10.05.2024 is being quoted below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1 and Sri Dharmendra Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gopal Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 1293 of 2023 (State Vs. Mudit Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 238 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj as well as charge sheet dated 28.03.2023 and summoning order dated 22.06.2023 on the basis of compromise dated 04.10.2023 entered between the parties.

3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 04.10.2023 has been annexed as Annexure-3 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

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

4. Pursuant to the said order dated 10.05.2024, the parties appeared before the court below and after due verification of the parties and contents of the compromise made between them, the court below vide order dated 02.08.2024 has passed the verification order. A copy of the same is annexed with the supplementary affidavit. Moreover, the offences in the alleged section are compoundable offence. Both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the case against the applicants.

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 do not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. 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.

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 proceeding of Criminal Case No.1293 of 2023 (State vs.Mudit Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.238 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Varanasi, is hereby quashed.

8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 SKD SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

2. The present 482 application has been filed to quash the charge- sheet dated 28.03.2023, summoning order dated 22.06.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1293 of 2023 (State vs.Mudit Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.238 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Instant application has filed to quash the proceeding on account of compromise entered between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute in terims of compromise. It is next submitted that the applicants filed 482 application No. 6480 of 2024 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024 directed the parties to appear before the court below for verification of compromise dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure 3 to the affidavit) within three weeks. The order dated 10.05.2024 is being quoted below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1 and Sri Dharmendra Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gopal Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 1293 of 2023 (State Vs. Mudit Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 238 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj as well as charge sheet dated 28.03.2023 and summoning order dated 22.06.2023 on the basis of compromise dated 04.10.2023 entered between the parties.

3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 04.10.2023 has been annexed as Annexure-3 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

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

4. Pursuant to the said order dated 10.05.2024, the parties appeared before the court below and after due verification of the parties and contents of the compromise made between them, the court below vide order dated 02.08.2024 has passed the verification order. A copy of the same is annexed with the supplementary affidavit. Moreover, the offences in the alleged section are compoundable offence. Both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the case against the applicants.

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 do not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. 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.

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 proceeding of Criminal Case No.1293 of 2023 (State vs.Mudit Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.238 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Varanasi, is hereby quashed.

8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 SKD SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad