High Court · 2025

1. Sri Ishan Bhasin, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ishan Bhasin, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The instant application has been filed with prayer to quash the impugned chargesheet no. 40 of 2011 in Case Crime No. 197 of 2011 u/s- 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3(2) SC/ST Act P.S.- Atriya District- Sitapur and cognizance order dated 23.11.2023 passed in S.T. No. 495 of 2013 may kindly be quashed/decided in terms of compromise between the opposite party no. 2 to 5 and the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 18.02.2025 which has been annexed as annexure no. 7 to the instant application. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicants are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicants and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1296 and has referred paragraph no. 13.4, which is extracted hereinunder:- "(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;"

6. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that all the injuries to all injured persons are simple in nature, therefore, the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment abovesaid, thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicants and the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

8. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

9. Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

10. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

11. 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.

12. For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of S.T. No. 495 of 2013 arising out of case crime no. 197 of 2011 u/s- 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3(2) SC/ST Act P.S.- Atriya District- Sitapur shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned.

13. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.

14. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Sri Ishan Bhasin, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ishan Bhasin, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The instant application has been filed with prayer to quash the impugned chargesheet no. 40 of 2011 in Case Crime No. 197 of 2011 u/s- 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3(2) SC/ST Act P.S.- Atriya District- Sitapur and cognizance order dated 23.11.2023 passed in S.T. No. 495 of 2013 may kindly be quashed/decided in terms of compromise between the opposite party no. 2 to 5 and the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 18.02.2025 which has been annexed as annexure no. 7 to the instant application. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicants are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicants and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1296 and has referred paragraph no. 13.4, which is extracted hereinunder:- "(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;"

6. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that all the injuries to all injured persons are simple in nature, therefore, the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment abovesaid, thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicants and the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

8. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

9. Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

10. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

11. 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.

12. For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of S.T. No. 495 of 2013 arising out of case crime no. 197 of 2011 u/s- 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3(2) SC/ST Act P.S.- Atriya District- Sitapur shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned.

13. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.

14. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench