Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5709 of 2025 Applicant :- Jageshwer And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Mayank Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. Shikha Sinha, the learned State and Sri Ravi Kant, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed a counter affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 BNSS, the applicants have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 641 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.297 of 2008, under Sections 308, 323, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lucknow, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement. 3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 07.07.2008, stating that the applicants had attacked the informant's wife on 02.07.2008 and when the informant and his son tried to save her, they were also assaulted. 4. The informant and his wife were medically examined and their medical reports indicates that the informant had suffered lacerated wound on right side of head and an abraded contusion upon right clavicle. The informant's wife had also suffered a single injury of lacerated wound on right side of head. 5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted a chargesheet, which was submitted against the applicants on 04.07.2008. 6. The informant has been examined by the trial court as P.W.-1 and he has been declared to be hostile. The informant's wife who had suffered injuries in the incident has died. After examination, P.W.1 has also died. 7. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise on 05.07.2025, wherein it is stated that son of the informant Arvind regarding whom it is stated in the FIR that he had also suffered some injuries in the incident, has entered into a compromise with the applicants on 05.07.2025 wherein, it is stated that his parents had received injuries accidentally. The parties have resolved their dispute and do not want any proceedings to continue in this matter. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed a counter affidavit accepting the of compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. 9. 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. 10. 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). 11. 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. 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that although the FIR alleged that the informant, his wife and his son had received injuries due to assault made by the applicants, the informant's son was not examined medically, the informant has turned hostile before the court and he has stated that he and his wife had suffered injury accidentally. The informant's wife is already dead and his son, the other person said to have received injuries in the incident and who was not examined medically, has entered into a settlement. 13. I am of the view that the continuance of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances will not serve the interest of justice. 14. Keeping 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 entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 641 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.297 of 2008, under Sections 308, 323, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow is hereby quashed. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench