Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40106 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5571 of 2025 Applicant :- Khem Singh @ Bhaggu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Digvijai Singh,Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Pradeep Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Digvijai Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned AGA-I for the State, Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. Short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet N. 252/2015 dated 21.12.2015, supplementary charge sheet No. 252A/2015 dated 27.03.2016, summoning order dated 24.12.2015 and 24.08.2016 as well as the entire proceeding of S.T. No. 70/2016 and 108/2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 0476 of 2015, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Lucknow, on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. 3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 23.10.2015 stating that the applicant no. 1 had fired at the informant but fortunately he escaped. The applicant no. 1 was caught on the spot. 4. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted on 27.03.2016, a supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 24.08.2016 and the trial court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons to face the trial by means of an order dated 28.04.2016. During pendency of the proceeding, the parties have arrived at a settlement on 04.07.2025 stating that it do not want any proceedings to continue against any person. 5. The opposite party no. 2 has filed a short counter affidavit admitting the averments made in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the learned counsel for the opposite party n. 2 has advanced submissions supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. 6. In Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online All 106, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688 wherein it has been held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. Although the offence under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of serious and heinous offences, 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 and the High Court should 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, the High Court may consider the nature of injury sustained, whether it was inflicted on any vital part of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Such an exercise would be permissible only after collection of the evidence and submission of the charge sheet and not when the matter is still being investigated. 7. In Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.: (2025) 4 SCC 78, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to and relied upon the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (supra). 8. Although the FIR contains a mention of Section 307 IPC, even as per the FIR version no person had received any injury in the incident. No person was examined medically to ascertain injuries in absence of averment regarding any injury having been sustained. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have stated that the trial court is still at a nascent stage and no prosecution witness has been examined till date. 9. As no person had received any injury in the instant case, the applicant was caught on the spot, the case is pending since the year 2016 and not even a single witness has been examined in this case and parties have arrived at a settlement, I am of the view that the proceedings may be quashed. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayan and Naushey Ali and of this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim (supra), it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. 11. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and the impugned charge sheet N. 252/2015 dated 21.12.2015, supplementary charge sheet No. 252A/2015 dated 27.03.2016, summoning order dated 24.12.2015 and 24.08.2016 as well as the entire proceeding of S.T. No. 70/2016 and 108/2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 0476 of 2015, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Lucknow, are quashed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Pradeep/- Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench