Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47185 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6565 of 2025 Applicant :- Shahanshah And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant(s), learned AGA for the State, as well as Shri Satyendra Nath Mishra, Advocate, who has put in appearance and files his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, and perused the record. The Vakalatnama is taken on record. 2. Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.721/2025 (State Vs. Munnu Farid and others) arising out of FIR No.0352/2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 435 and 324 IPC lodged at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur, to quash the charge-sheet dated 31.01.2021 filed in the aforesaid FIR as well as to quash the order dated 24.07.2025 by means of which the applicants have been summoned on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement/compromise. 3. It is argued by learned counsel appearing for the applicants that the aforesaid FIR was lodged against the applicants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 435 and 324 IPC. He added that in fact due to certain misconception the aforesaid FIR was lodged and thereafter the parties sat together and have settled their dispute amicably vide compromise deed dated 21.07.2025 and now there is no further dispute in between the parties. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 21.07.2025, which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the instant application. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicants are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicants. 4. Adding his arguments, he submits that as per the ratio of law laid down in paragraph no. 15.4 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 688, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated the guidelines so far as the compromise under sections 307 readwith section 34 I.P.C. is concerned. Para no. 15.4 of the Judgment in the case of Laxmi Narayan(Supra) is extracted hereinunder: "15.4 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/delicate 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove." 5. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the provision of Section 307 IPC has wrongly been involved as there is no injury on vital part of body of the injured and, therefore, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has supported the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicants and the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped. 7. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid. 8. Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the trial Court as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the trial 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. 10. The trial 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. 11. For a period of three months, the proceeding shall remain stayed so far as present applicants are concerned. 12. The trial court is further directed for ensuring the fact that all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed are present before the trial Court and a report with respect to this effect shall also be sent alongwith verification order. 13. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed dated 21.07.2025 to learned counsel for the applicants within a week. . [Shree Prakash Singh, J.] Order Date :- 12.8.2025 MVS/- Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench