Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31599 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42782 of 2024 Applicant :- Kapil Mishra Alias Kapil Kumar Mishra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dwivedi,Kamlendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Girish Chandra Shukla,Rajeev Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Kamlendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Hariom Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Girish Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Cauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 07.02.2019 and cognizance/summoning order dated 08.07.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 390 of 2020, arising out of case crime no. 157 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Ata, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi, Jalaun, on the basis of compromise. 3. Earlier Application U/S 482 No. 26417 of 2024 was filed, wherein on 12.11.2024 the following order was passed:- "This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 07.02.2019 and cognizance/summoning order dated 08.07.2020, of criminal case no. 390 of 2020, arising out of case crime no. 157 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Ata, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of J.M., Kalpi, Jaunpur, in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Pursuant to the order dated 13.08.2024, the parties have not filed compromise deed before the Court concerned as is evident from report of Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi (Jalaun). Learned counsel for the parties requests that sometime may be granted to appear before the Court below along with proper compromise deed for verification of the same. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order and to move an application along with proper compromise deed. 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 two 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. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the order verifying the compromise deed and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order compromise has been verified by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi, Jalaun, vide order dated 21.09.2024, certified copy of the same has been annexed as annexure No.5 of the application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. 7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, 8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute. 10. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 07.02.2019 and cognizance/summoning order dated 08.07.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 390 of 2020, arising out of case crime no. 157 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Ata, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi, Jalaun,, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed. 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad