High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Abhishant And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar,Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amrit Mishra,G.A.,Ujjwal Srivastava Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

1. Short counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the informant, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 23.04.2022, summoning order dated 03.11.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1569 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Syohara, District Bijnor, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled the dispute out of Court and does not want to proceed against the applicants. It is next submitted that the applicants filed 482 Application No.9676 of 2024 before this Court to quash the proceedings as both the parties have amicably settled the dispute out of the court. This Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 has passed the following orders :- "1. Short counter affidavit filed by counsel for the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1, and Sri Saurabh Kesharwani, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Amrit Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1569 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Syohara, District Bijnor as well as the charge-sheet dated 23.04.2022 and the cognizance/ summoning order dated 03.11.2022 passed in the said case.

4. Counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. In the alleged incident, the father of the informant received injuries. The injuries were not found serious in nature. Further, during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 20.11.2023 has been annexed as Annexure-14 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 Court concerned and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that he has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.

6. Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

7. In view of the above, the parties including the injured are directed to appear before the court concerned 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 concerned 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.

8. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

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

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

5. Dispute between the parties is civil and private in nature and father of the informant has received injury. Injuries are not serious in nature. Pursuant to the said order dated 17.05.2024, the parties appeared before the court below and after due verification of the parties through their counsels and contents of the compromise made between them, the court below vide order dated 03.06.2024 has passed the verification order. A copy of the same is available on record.

6. 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 applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

7. 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. He next submitted that the applicants have also lodged FIR against the opposite party no.2, in that proceeding parties have also compromised the matter and moved application for quashing the proceeding. Trial court by order dated 14.12.2023 quashed the proceeding. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts argued by learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the informant has filed counter affidavit and in Para-11 of the counter affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if parties have amicably settled the dispute in terms of compromise.

8. 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 proceedings of Criminal Case No.1569 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Syohara, District Bijnor, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor is hereby quashed.

9. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 SKD SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Abhishant And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar,Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amrit Mishra,G.A.,Ujjwal Srivastava Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

1. Short counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the informant, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 23.04.2022, summoning order dated 03.11.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1569 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Syohara, District Bijnor, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled the dispute out of Court and does not want to proceed against the applicants. It is next submitted that the applicants filed 482 Application No.9676 of 2024 before this Court to quash the proceedings as both the parties have amicably settled the dispute out of the court. This Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 has passed the following orders :- "1. Short counter affidavit filed by counsel for the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1, and Sri Saurabh Kesharwani, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Amrit Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1569 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Syohara, District Bijnor as well as the charge-sheet dated 23.04.2022 and the cognizance/ summoning order dated 03.11.2022 passed in the said case.

4. Counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. In the alleged incident, the father of the informant received injuries. The injuries were not found serious in nature. Further, during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 20.11.2023 has been annexed as Annexure-14 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 Court concerned and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that he has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.

6. Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

7. In view of the above, the parties including the injured are directed to appear before the court concerned 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 concerned 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.

8. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

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

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

5. Dispute between the parties is civil and private in nature and father of the informant has received injury. Injuries are not serious in nature. Pursuant to the said order dated 17.05.2024, the parties appeared before the court below and after due verification of the parties through their counsels and contents of the compromise made between them, the court below vide order dated 03.06.2024 has passed the verification order. A copy of the same is available on record.

6. 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 applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

7. 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. He next submitted that the applicants have also lodged FIR against the opposite party no.2, in that proceeding parties have also compromised the matter and moved application for quashing the proceeding. Trial court by order dated 14.12.2023 quashed the proceeding. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts argued by learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the informant has filed counter affidavit and in Para-11 of the counter affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if parties have amicably settled the dispute in terms of compromise.

8. 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 proceedings of Criminal Case No.1569 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Syohara, District Bijnor, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor is hereby quashed.

9. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 SKD SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad