Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84357 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5746 of 2025 Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Alias Krishna Kumar Shukla Alias Krishna Narayan Shukla And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Kumar Verma,Jayant Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Kumar Verma and Mr. Jayant Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ayaan Ahmad, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Digvijay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Satendra Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 17.02.2023 bearing charge sheet no.A 65 of 2023, summoning order dated 16.07.2024 as well as order dated 30.01.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No.9521 of 2024 (State vs. Krishna Kumar And others), arising out of Case Crime No.178 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 452, 308 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Deoria, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Deoria, on the basis of compromise. 3. On 21.04.2025, the following order was passed:- "Heard Mr. Jayant Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Digvijay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 17.02.2023 bearing charge sheet no.A 65 of 2023, summoning order dated 16.07.2024 as well as order dated 30.01.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No.9521 of 2024 (State vs. Krishna Kumar And others), arising out of Case Crime No.178 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 452, 308 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Deoria, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Deoria. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In this regard, an application was moved before the Court concerned, which has been rejected by order dated 30.01.2025 on the ground that offences are non-compoundable. During pendency of the proceedings, informant expired and the injured who was son of the informant has stated that he does not want to proceed with the case and has entered into compromise. In such circumstances, rejection of the compromise application is nothing but abuse of process of law and wastage time of the Court as no one is turned up before the trial Court to give any statement against the applicants. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also do not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. Put up this case on 20.05.2025, as fresh, along with verification report. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise verification report from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, is kept on record as is evident from office report dated 19.05.2025. The letter of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria dated 07.05.2025 is placed along with order dated 06.05.2025 vide which compromise between the parties has been verified. 5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that informant died during pendency of the proceedings, therefore, compromise has been entered into between legal heirs of the informant and the alleged accused persons. They further submit that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State also accepts that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. 7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, 8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute. 10. Accordingly, proceedings of charge sheet dated 17.02.2023 bearing charge sheet no.A 65 of 2023, summoning order dated 16.07.2024 as well as order dated 30.01.2025 and Case No.9521 of 2024 (State vs. Krishna Kumar And others), arising out of Case Crime No.178 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 452, 308 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Deoria, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Deoria, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed. 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 20.5.2025/Rahul. Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad