Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28710 Court No. - 29 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4010 of 2025 Applicant :- Satyam And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dheerendra Kumar Singh,Indra Jeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 25.2.2019 issued by Session Judge 'F.T.C. First' POCSO, District Ambedkar Nagar and quash the charge sheet number 01/2019 against the applicants under Section 323, 504, 5 06, 452, 376 I.P.C. and the entire proceedings pending before the learned Sessions Judge 'F.T.C. First' POCSO District Ambedkar Nagar (State Vs. Satyam and others) against applicant Case no. 214 of 2019, Case Crime No.004 of 2019. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that due to some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants thereafter they started living together and have solemnized marriage. He next added that the applicants have annexed the compromise deed as Annexure No.6 to the application, entered in between the parties on 16.4.2025 wherein conditions have been mentioned. He next added that the further criminal proceedings against the present applicants would be a futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and thus, with a view to settle a family and to meet the ends of interest of justice, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and has referred paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:- "9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy and the case of the present applicants are also squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment aforesaid. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 supports the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and reiterated that now the opposite party no. 2 has no grievance against the applicants and his family members. The opposite party no. 2 and the applicants are living with each other and thus, further criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid. 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. 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. 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. For a period of three month, the proceedings of Case no. 214 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.004 of 2019 shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned. 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 :- 15.5.2025 Ram Murti Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench