Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71682 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2180 of 2025 Applicant :- Milan Upadhyay Alias Milan Shastri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Goyal the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A..G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of first informant/opposite party-2 by filing his vakalatname and a counter affidavit in court today, which are taken on record. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicants-Milan Upadhyay Alias Milan Shastri, who is a charge sheeted accused and has been summoned by court below, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application under 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned cognizance order dated 30.04.2024, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Agra, in Case No. 7421 of 2024, (State Vs. Milan Upadhyay @ Milan Shastri), and impugned charge sheet dated 22.03.2024, submitted in Case Crime No. 79 of 2024, Under Section 376 1.P.C. Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra, as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 7421 of 2024, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Agra on the basis of compromise dated 06.12.2024 executed between the parties. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court stay the further proceedings of Case No. 7421 of 2024, (State Vs. Milan Upadhyay @ Milan Shastri), arising out of Case Crime No. 79 of 2024, Under Section 376 I.P.C. Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Agra during the pendency of the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and has further been summoned by court below, however, in view of the fact as have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained any further. According to the learned counsel for applicant, during the pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute out side the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the compromise so entered into by the parties was reduced in writing by way of a compromise deed dated 06.12.2024. Copy of the compromise deed has been appended as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that since the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society, therefore, in view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court. Moreover, in view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the , the chances of conviction of accused/applicant are not only remote but also bleak. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that in view of above, present application is liable to be allowed by this Court. 5. Court raised a pointed query as to whether the said compromise, copy of the which has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of this application, has been filed before court below or not. 6. Learned counsel for applicants fairly submits that the said compromise has not yet been filed before court below. 7. At this juncture, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that in view of aforesaid factual situation, there is no such material on record so as to conclusively conclude that the parties have entered into a compromise. Since the compromise deed relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant has not been filed before court below therefore it is not fact of record. Learned A.G.A. has then referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR OnLine 2019 SC 1716, wherein the Apex Court has observed that there can be no compromise in matters of rape and sexual assault. It is thus contended by the learned A.G.A. that the compromise entered into by the parties is wholly misconceived in the facts and circumstances. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present applicaton. 8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record this court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record but furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 10. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 11. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 YK Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad