HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7870 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Sri Akhilendra Kumar Goswami, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 & 3 and the same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akhilendra Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 & 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.262 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.204 of 2016, under sections- 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., at Police Station- Sareni, District- Rae Bareli as well as impugned chargesheet no.121/16, dated 19.7.2016. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants and thereafter, the parties have amicably settled their dispute. The compromise deeds have been reduced in writing on 08.04.2025 which has been annexed as annexure no. 5 to the instant application. 5. Adding his arguments, he submits that this is the case of no injury and the case of the present applicants is covered with 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, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rahul Singh @ Kuldeep Kumar And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the Hon'ble Apex 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." 6. Referring the aforesaid ratio, he submits that in the instant matter, the nature of injuries are as such wherein this court can invoke jurisdiction while exercising its powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceedings. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings initiated in the instant matter would be a futile exercise and therefore, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Case Crime No. 204 of 2016, may be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicants and the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped. 8. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the A482 No. 7870 of 2025 2 contentions aforesaid. 9. 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 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. 10. 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. 11. For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Sessions Trial No.262 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.204 of 2016, under sections- 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., at Police Station- Sareni, District- Raebareli, shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned. 12. 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. 13. Office is directed to return the original compromise deeds to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same. September 18, 2025 Mayank A482 No. 7870 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench