HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5954 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vinit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the following prayers:- "It is very humbly and respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court to quash the proceeding of Case which has been initiated by FIR lodged by informant of case at P.S. Kunda as Case Crime No. 0283 of 2016, U/s-363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Kunda, District- Pratapgarh, develop from the charge sheet filed by police of P.S. Kunda, Pratapgarh, the charge sheet no. 183 of 2016 dated 13.09.2016, the trial is pending before the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Pratapgarh as State of U.P. Versus Suneel Kumar, till the disposal of this petition." 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that initially, the father of the victim lodged the FIR under certain misconception, though subsequently, the complainant died. He submits that the alleged victim has performed marriage with some other person and is living with her husband peacefully and if the criminal proceeding would be allowed to go on, her presence would be required on the dates and that would again create a trauma to her. 4. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Priyam Mishra, Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vinit Kumar Pandey Suneel Kumar Saroj .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) rendered in the case of Madhukar and Others versus State of Maharashtra and Another in SLP (Crl.) No.7212 of 2025 and has referred paragraph 7 of the judgment, which reads as under:- "7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More Importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome" 5. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment aforesaid. He next added that the compromise deed is appended as Annexure No.7 (page no.48-51) to the application and the same may be referred to the trial court for its verification. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2/ victim supported the version of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped and also agreed that the parties have entered into a compromise deed. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State though has opposed the contention aforesaid but he could not dispute the settled proposition of law applicable in the present matter. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is hereby referred to the trial court and the trial court is directed to consider and decide the application of the applicant alongwith the A482 No. 5954 of 2025 2 compromise deed for its verification, after affording opportunity to all the parties. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. 12. For a period of three months, the criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of the Case Crime No.0283 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Kunda, District Pratapgarh, shall remain stayed so far as applicant is concerned. 13. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order. 14. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicant, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same. September 4, 2025 Mohd. Sharif A482 No. 5954 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench