Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82366 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6855 of 2025 Applicant :- Sagagat Alias Sadakat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Yadav,Ritik Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neha Rani,Satyvendra Singh Yadav Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pawan Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party 1. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant Sagagat Alias Sadakat who is named as well as charge sheeted accused and has now been summoned by the court below has approached by this Court by means of present application under Section 528 B.N.N.S. with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and set aside and quash the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 261 of 2024 (State Vs. Sagagat @ Sadakat) as well as charge sheet dated 14.06.2024 and Cognizance order dated 13.08.20524 arising out of Case Crime No. 90 of 2024, under section 323, 452, 376, 506 1.P.C., Police Station Sirauli, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-IInd Bareilly on the basis of compromise dated 21.02.2025, and/or pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, under the facts and circumstances of the case. Court may deem fit and proper, under the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and as well as charge sheeted accused and also facing trial before court below, however, in view of the fact as has now emerged from the record the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained any further. As such, the present application is liable to be allowed and the impugned proceedings pending against accused applicant before court below are liable to be quashed by this court. 5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission the learned counsel for applicant submits that during pendency of the above mentioned criminal case parties amicably settled dispute outside the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at by the parties a compromise was entered into. Ultimately the terms of the compromise entered into by the parties were reduced in writing by way of a compromise deed dated 21.2.2025. The original copy of the compromise has been brought on record and is at page 70 of paper book. 6. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused applicant are not only remote but also bleak. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. On the edifice of aforesaid submissions it is thus urged by learned counsel for applicant that the impugned proceedings pending against accused applicant are liable to be quashed by this Court. 7. At this juncture the Court has raised a pointed query as to whether the said compromise has been filed before the court below or not. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly submits that the said compromise has not yet been filed before the court below. 9. As this juncture, learned A.G.A. submits that since the compromise entered into by the parties has yet not been filed before court below, therefore, there is no such material on record on the basis of which it cannot be conclusive concluded that the parties have entered into a compromise. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Pal vs. State of Haryana A.I.R. S.C. Online 2019 Page 1716, the learned A.G.A. submits that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgments has itself held that there can be no compromise in matters of rape and sexual assault. On the above premise, learned A.G.A. thus submits that the compromise, if any, entered into by the parties is of no consequence. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 10. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not over come the same. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 12. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 13. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Kumar Manish Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad