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

1. Heard Shri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Shri Ranveer Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.602 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.127 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Asother, District Fatehpur, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Fatehpur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged 17.09.2018 by opposite party no.2, father of the victim with the allegation that the applicant has kidnapped his minor daughter when she went to take fodder in the field. In the said matter after investigation chargesheet was filed and the Court has taken cognizance. The entire proceedings have been challenged by the applicant by means of instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and victim have solemnized marriage and have a son out of their wedlock, they are living together and the victim as well as opposite party no.2 do not want to prosecute the applicant. Since the applicant was in Punjab and not aware of the matter, the proceeding under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant. Hence, the aforesaid proceeding may be quashed.

5. Sri Ranveer Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 has filed a short counter affidavit stating that the victim and applicant have solemnized marriage having one son, they are living happily at the house of opposite party no.2 and the victim and opposite party no.2 do not want to prosecute the applicant. He further submits that he has no objection, in case, the aforesaid proceedings are being quashed.

6. From perusal of short counter affidavit, it transpires that the victim as well opposite party no.2 do not want to prosecute the applicant as the applicant and victim have solemnized their marriage and are living happily having one son out of their wedlock.

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. 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 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 (supra) 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. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, which is apparent from the short counter affidavit dated 10.07.2025 record, the present Application U/S 528 BNSS is liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 528 BNSS is allowed and the proceeding of Sessions Trial No.602 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.127 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Asother, District Fatehpur, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Fatehpur are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 S.P. SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Shri Ranveer Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.602 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.127 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Asother, District Fatehpur, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Fatehpur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged 17.09.2018 by opposite party no.2, father of the victim with the allegation that the applicant has kidnapped his minor daughter when she went to take fodder in the field. In the said matter after investigation chargesheet was filed and the Court has taken cognizance. The entire proceedings have been challenged by the applicant by means of instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and victim have solemnized marriage and have a son out of their wedlock, they are living together and the victim as well as opposite party no.2 do not want to prosecute the applicant. Since the applicant was in Punjab and not aware of the matter, the proceeding under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant. Hence, the aforesaid proceeding may be quashed.

5. Sri Ranveer Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 has filed a short counter affidavit stating that the victim and applicant have solemnized marriage having one son, they are living happily at the house of opposite party no.2 and the victim and opposite party no.2 do not want to prosecute the applicant. He further submits that he has no objection, in case, the aforesaid proceedings are being quashed.

6. From perusal of short counter affidavit, it transpires that the victim as well opposite party no.2 do not want to prosecute the applicant as the applicant and victim have solemnized their marriage and are living happily having one son out of their wedlock.

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. 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 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 (supra) 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. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, which is apparent from the short counter affidavit dated 10.07.2025 record, the present Application U/S 528 BNSS is liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 528 BNSS is allowed and the proceeding of Sessions Trial No.602 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.127 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Asother, District Fatehpur, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Fatehpur are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 S.P. SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad