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

1. Heard Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for applicants, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that in the earlier application filed by the applicants i.e. Application U/S 482 No.38063 of 2024, while disposing of the application this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 directed the parties to appear before the court below for verification of the compromise arrived at between the parties. He further submits that as per direction of this court the parties have appeared before the court below and the court below has verified their compromise vide order dated 12.12.2024, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-8 to this application. As such, he prays that the proceedings of the criminal case against the applicants may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. On perusal of order dated 12.12.2024, it transpires that the parties had appeared before the trial Court, who were identified by their respective counsels and the compromise was verified by the trial Court. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and O.P. no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending.

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 compromise between the parties.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (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 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."

6. 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.

7. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.1012 of 2018 (State v. Imamuddin and others) arising out of Case Crime No.955 of 2018 under section 376/307/323/504/506 IPC, P.S.Kankarkhera, District-Meerut as well as charge sheet dated 20.09.2018, qua the present applicants are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Manish Himwan MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for applicants, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that in the earlier application filed by the applicants i.e. Application U/S 482 No.38063 of 2024, while disposing of the application this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 directed the parties to appear before the court below for verification of the compromise arrived at between the parties. He further submits that as per direction of this court the parties have appeared before the court below and the court below has verified their compromise vide order dated 12.12.2024, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-8 to this application. As such, he prays that the proceedings of the criminal case against the applicants may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. On perusal of order dated 12.12.2024, it transpires that the parties had appeared before the trial Court, who were identified by their respective counsels and the compromise was verified by the trial Court. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and O.P. no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending.

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 compromise between the parties.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (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 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."

6. 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.

7. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.1012 of 2018 (State v. Imamuddin and others) arising out of Case Crime No.955 of 2018 under section 376/307/323/504/506 IPC, P.S.Kankarkhera, District-Meerut as well as charge sheet dated 20.09.2018, qua the present applicants are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Manish Himwan MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad