Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1802 Court No. - 18 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 116 of 2025 Applicant :- Shahsi Kant Dixit And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Shukla,Pradeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Learned counsel for applicants has argued that impugned criminal case was lodged by the complainant-opposite party 2 under some misunderstanding, wherein the impugned charge-sheet against accused has been filed. He submits that during the pendency of the case, the parties have amicably settled the dispute therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise as the chances of conviction are extremely bleak. Learned counsel for applicants prays for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC for setting aside the impugned criminal proceedings. During the course of hearing, it is stated by the learned counsel for applicants that he confines the impugned challenge of the criminal proceedings on the sole ground of compromise and further it is also not disputed by him that the charges against applicants have not been framed. Upon hearing the learned counsel for applicants and considering his submissions, this Court does not find any merit in this case as the sole ground of compromise relied upon by the applicants is not supported with any written compromise as no such document has been placed on record. Though, an afÏdavit of opposite party 2-victim dated 22.04.2024 addressed to Additional Commissioner of Police, Dubagga, Lucknow has been placed on record that cannot be construed as a written compromise, particularly when the victim has clearly mentioned in paragraph 5 of the said afÏdavit that her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC was a result of pressure upon her. Neither there is any valid proof of alleged marriage between the parties nor the afÏdavit of the victim can be accepted as a document free from any coercion or influence therefore, the sole ground of compromise is rejected. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in 2019 AIR (Supreme Court) 1296 laid down the principles for quashing of the criminal proceedings on the strength of compromise, in non-compoundable offences by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:- "13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, 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 (supra) 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. 14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the fire arm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused." Consequently, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the sole ground of compromise raised by the applicants for quashing of the criminal proceedings is unacceptable. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the application is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.1.2025. Rks. Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench