HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1695 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Satish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 21.09.2012 as well as entire proceeding against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 4511 of 2011, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Naraura, District Bulandshahr on the basis of compromise. 3. The parties before this Court had made a request that they have entered into a compromise in this matter and have settled all the disputes between them and now they do not want to proceed with this matter. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before this Court that the compromise entered into between the parties has been made without any coercion or undue influence upon the complainant of this case and is a result of free will and consent of the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid and states that he has no objection if the impugned proceeding pending against the applicant is quashed. 6. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025 directed the learned trial court to verify the compromise deed in presence of both the parties and in compliance of the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by this Court, learned trial court submitted its verification report dated 21.05.2025 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satish Kumar Mishra Umashankar Sharma Alias Umashankar Gaur .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) to this Court. 7. It appears from perusal of the record that the compromise between the parties is the result of free will and consent of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 without any coercion or undue influence. 8. In view of that, this Court finds that since the parties have entered into compromise which has already been verified by the trial court, now nothing rests in this matter to continue. 9. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed. 10. The law is well-settled by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the summoning order dated 21.09.2012 as well as entire proceeding against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 4511 of 2011, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Naraura, District Bulandshahr. 11. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. 12. Hence, summoning order dated 21.09.2012 as well as entire proceeding against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 4511 of 2011, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Naraura, District Bulandshahr, are, hereby, quashed in terms of the compromise March 25, 2026 Rmk. A482 No. 1695 of 2025 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad