It is further prayed during the pendency of the above noted case before the v. Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar pending in court of learned

4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that during the pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the terms of the compromise entered into by the parties was reduced in writing by way of a compromise deed dated 07.06.2024. The copy of the compromise deed has been brought on record as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. As per the terms of compromise, accused/applicant was to pay a sum of Rs. 2, 25,000/- to the first informant/opposite party-2. The compromise further records that a Bank Draft valued at Rs. 1,25,000/- (bearing No. 164638) has already been submitted before the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. 13628 of 2024. Another Bank Draft valued at Rs. 1,00,000/- (bearing no. 001479) was appended along with the aforementioned compromise application.

5. Present application came up for admission on 25.10.2024 and this Court passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the both the parties submits that parties settled their dispute arising out of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of I.P.C. on the basis of compromise dated 7.6.2024 Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three weeks time to file supplementary affidavit annexing certified copy of compromise. Put up this case on 19.2.2025. Until further orders, further proceedings of Case No. 1048 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 222 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of I.P.C., P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, shall remain stayed against the applicant."

6. In compliance of above order dated 25.10.2024, the compromise so entered into by the parties was reaffirmed by filing a subsequent compromise deed dated 25.11.2024, wherein the details of payment were also made. Certified copy of the compromise deed dated 25.11.2024 has been filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today, which is taken on record.

7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against State or society. Since the parties have entered into a compromise, which has also been acted upon, no good ground now exists to prolong the criminal prosecution of applicant. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused-applicant is not only remote but also bleak. As such no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the criminal prosecution of applicant either. In view of above, the impugned proceedings pending against applicant before Court below are liable to be quashed by this Court.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party- 1 submits that since offence complained of against applicant is a cognizance and non-bailable offence, therefore, no compounding of the same can be directed in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factum of compromise entered into by the parties.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Subhash Chandra Tiwari, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 does not oppose the present application. He submits that it is an admitted fact that during the pendency of above-mentioned criminal proceedings, the parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the said compromise was acted upon and a compromise deed dated 07.06.2024 was filed before Court below. Subsequent to the order dated

25.10.2024, passed by this Court in present application, another deed of compromise deed dated 25.11.2024 was filed before Court below. As per the said compromise, the first informant-opposite party-2 has duly acknowledge the receipt of the Bank Drafts mentioned above. On the above premise, he, therefore, submits that he cannot have any objection, in case, the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration aforementioned facts.

10. Be that as it may, this Court finds that prima-facie the parties have entered into a compromise, which has been acted upon. The first informant-opposite party-2 has clearly admitted the factum of compromise entered into by the parties. Nothing has been urged before this Court on behalf of first informant-opposite party-2 that the amount payable to the first informant-opposite party-2 has not yet been paid.

11. Irrespective of the aforesaid facts, this Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of the Supreme Court regarding compromise in criminal matters;- i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 ii. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 iii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] iv. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 v. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705 vi. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 vii. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 viii. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497 ix. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 x. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653 xi. Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721 xii. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 xiii. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350 xiv. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 xv. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290 xvi. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench) xvii. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570 xviii. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 xix. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 xx. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 xxi. (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 xxii. Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936. xxiii. State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021. xiv. Shatrughna Atmaram Patil and Another Vs. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary and Another, (2024) 4 SCC 458. xv. Suraj Singh Gujar and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2414. xvi. K. Bharti Devi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another, (2024) 10 SCC 384. xvii. Ramji Lal Bairwa and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193. xviii. H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC

38. wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Recently, the Apex Court in Daxaben (supra) has held that no compromise can be made in matter under Section 306 IPC. In state of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman (Supra), Court has held that no compromise can be entertained in matters under the POCSO Acts. 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 the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

12. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the report, which read as under: "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

13. Recently in Ramgopal and another (supra), Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19:- "18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

14. In State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra), the Apex Court held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC cannot be sole basis for not quashing the proceedings. Court has to examine whether the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence for framing of charge under Section 307 IPC. The Court has further required to examine the weapons used and nature of injury and whether injury has been inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body, the previous antecedents of accused and whether they are absconding and how the compromise was got entered into by the parties are relevant factors, which must be considered. The above observations can be clearly delineated from the recital occurring in paragraphs 11 to 18 of the aforementioned report.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2, upon perusal of record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above and the observations made by the Apex Court as noted herein above, this Court finds that there does not exist any legal impediment in accepting the compromise entered into by the parties. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused-applicants is not only remote but also bleak. As such, continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to the parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.

16. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

17. It is, accordingly, allowed.

18. The entire proceedings in Case No. 1048 of 2024 (State Vs. Abhishek Soni and others), under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar now pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in so far as they relate to applicant only, are, hereby, quashed.

19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 YK YASHWANT KUMAR YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that during the pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the terms of the compromise entered into by the parties was reduced in writing by way of a compromise deed dated 07.06.2024. The copy of the compromise deed has been brought on record as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. As per the terms of compromise, accused/applicant was to pay a sum of Rs. 2, 25,000/- to the first informant/opposite party-2. The compromise further records that a Bank Draft valued at Rs. 1,25,000/- (bearing No. 164638) has already been submitted before the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. 13628 of 2024. Another Bank Draft valued at Rs. 1,00,000/- (bearing no. 001479) was appended along with the aforementioned compromise application.

5. Present application came up for admission on 25.10.2024 and this Court passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the both the parties submits that parties settled their dispute arising out of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of I.P.C. on the basis of compromise dated 7.6.2024 Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three weeks time to file supplementary affidavit annexing certified copy of compromise. Put up this case on 19.2.2025. Until further orders, further proceedings of Case No. 1048 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 222 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of I.P.C., P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, shall remain stayed against the applicant."

6. In compliance of above order dated 25.10.2024, the compromise so entered into by the parties was reaffirmed by filing a subsequent compromise deed dated 25.11.2024, wherein the details of payment were also made. Certified copy of the compromise deed dated 25.11.2024 has been filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today, which is taken on record.

7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against State or society. Since the parties have entered into a compromise, which has also been acted upon, no good ground now exists to prolong the criminal prosecution of applicant. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused-applicant is not only remote but also bleak. As such no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the criminal prosecution of applicant either. In view of above, the impugned proceedings pending against applicant before Court below are liable to be quashed by this Court.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party- 1 submits that since offence complained of against applicant is a cognizance and non-bailable offence, therefore, no compounding of the same can be directed in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factum of compromise entered into by the parties.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Subhash Chandra Tiwari, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 does not oppose the present application. He submits that it is an admitted fact that during the pendency of above-mentioned criminal proceedings, the parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the said compromise was acted upon and a compromise deed dated 07.06.2024 was filed before Court below. Subsequent to the order dated

25.10.2024, passed by this Court in present application, another deed of compromise deed dated 25.11.2024 was filed before Court below. As per the said compromise, the first informant-opposite party-2 has duly acknowledge the receipt of the Bank Drafts mentioned above. On the above premise, he, therefore, submits that he cannot have any objection, in case, the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration aforementioned facts.

10. Be that as it may, this Court finds that prima-facie the parties have entered into a compromise, which has been acted upon. The first informant-opposite party-2 has clearly admitted the factum of compromise entered into by the parties. Nothing has been urged before this Court on behalf of first informant-opposite party-2 that the amount payable to the first informant-opposite party-2 has not yet been paid.

11. Irrespective of the aforesaid facts, this Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of the Supreme Court regarding compromise in criminal matters;- i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 ii. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 iii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] iv. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 v. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705 vi. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 vii. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 viii. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497 ix. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 x. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653 xi. Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721 xii. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 xiii. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350 xiv. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 xv. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290 xvi. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench) xvii. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570 xviii. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 xix. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 xx. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 xxi. (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 xxii. Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936. xxiii. State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021. xiv. Shatrughna Atmaram Patil and Another Vs. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary and Another, (2024) 4 SCC 458. xv. Suraj Singh Gujar and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2414. xvi. K. Bharti Devi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another, (2024) 10 SCC 384. xvii. Ramji Lal Bairwa and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193. xviii. H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC

38. wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Recently, the Apex Court in Daxaben (supra) has held that no compromise can be made in matter under Section 306 IPC. In state of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman (Supra), Court has held that no compromise can be entertained in matters under the POCSO Acts. 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 the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

12. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the report, which read as under: "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

13. Recently in Ramgopal and another (supra), Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19:- "18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

14. In State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra), the Apex Court held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC cannot be sole basis for not quashing the proceedings. Court has to examine whether the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence for framing of charge under Section 307 IPC. The Court has further required to examine the weapons used and nature of injury and whether injury has been inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body, the previous antecedents of accused and whether they are absconding and how the compromise was got entered into by the parties are relevant factors, which must be considered. The above observations can be clearly delineated from the recital occurring in paragraphs 11 to 18 of the aforementioned report.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2, upon perusal of record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above and the observations made by the Apex Court as noted herein above, this Court finds that there does not exist any legal impediment in accepting the compromise entered into by the parties. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused-applicants is not only remote but also bleak. As such, continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to the parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.

16. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

17. It is, accordingly, allowed.

18. The entire proceedings in Case No. 1048 of 2024 (State Vs. Abhishek Soni and others), under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar now pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in so far as they relate to applicant only, are, hereby, quashed.

19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 YK YASHWANT KUMAR YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad