The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in

1. Heard Sri S..K. Pandey, learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record.

2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.01.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Case No.1922 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.361 of 2008, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Basti, on the basis of compromise. .

3.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are an accused in Case Crime no.361 of 2008 under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and by means of interim order dated 07.04.2009, the proceedings against them were stayed by this Court. It is further submitted that subsequently applicant no.1 and the prosecutrix have got married and are living together as husband and wife since more than 15 years. He further submits that out said wedlock they have two children aged about 14 years and 11 years. He further submitted that applicants and O.P. no.2 settled their dispute out of the Court and they have entered into compromise on

09.07.2024. He further submits that the said compromise has already been filed before the trial court and also in the present case, which is pending since 2009. As per the said compromise the applicants and opposite party no.2 have resolved their dispute and now opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the criminal case.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection if the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings are quashed in terms of the 2 A482 No. 3168 of 2009 compromise between the parties.

5. In compliance of the order dated 07.07.2025 compromise verification report is placed on record as is evident from office report dated

15.09.2024. The letter of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti dated

22.07.2025 has been placed on record along with order dated 21.07.2025 vide which compromise has been verified between the parties.

6. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present application pending.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) 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; ii) 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; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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; iv) 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 3 A482 No. 3168 of 2009 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 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/delegate 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 paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) 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 impart 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 accused; 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 into a compromise etc."

8. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

9. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain 4 A482 No. 3168 of 2009 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. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the trial Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.

11. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, impugned order dated 30.01.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Case No.1922 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.361 of 2008, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Basti, qua the present applicants is hereby quashed. September 16, 2025 AS (Alok Mathur,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri S..K. Pandey, learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record.

2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.01.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Case No.1922 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.361 of 2008, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Basti, on the basis of compromise. .

3.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are an accused in Case Crime no.361 of 2008 under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and by means of interim order dated 07.04.2009, the proceedings against them were stayed by this Court. It is further submitted that subsequently applicant no.1 and the prosecutrix have got married and are living together as husband and wife since more than 15 years. He further submits that out said wedlock they have two children aged about 14 years and 11 years. He further submitted that applicants and O.P. no.2 settled their dispute out of the Court and they have entered into compromise on

09.07.2024. He further submits that the said compromise has already been filed before the trial court and also in the present case, which is pending since 2009. As per the said compromise the applicants and opposite party no.2 have resolved their dispute and now opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the criminal case.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection if the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings are quashed in terms of the 2 A482 No. 3168 of 2009 compromise between the parties.

5. In compliance of the order dated 07.07.2025 compromise verification report is placed on record as is evident from office report dated

15.09.2024. The letter of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti dated

22.07.2025 has been placed on record along with order dated 21.07.2025 vide which compromise has been verified between the parties.

6. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present application pending.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) 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; ii) 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; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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; iv) 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 3 A482 No. 3168 of 2009 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 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/delegate 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 paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) 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 impart 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 accused; 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 into a compromise etc."

8. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

9. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain 4 A482 No. 3168 of 2009 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. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the trial Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.

11. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, impugned order dated 30.01.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Case No.1922 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.361 of 2008, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Basti, qua the present applicants is hereby quashed. September 16, 2025 AS (Alok Mathur,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad