Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32861 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7488 of 2025 Applicant :- Hemnt Alias Banti Shakya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A..G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Hemnt Alias Banti Shakya, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 2182 of 2021 (State Vs. Banti Shakya), arising out of Case Crime No. 160 of 2019, Under Section 376 1.P.C., Police Station-Premnagar, District- Jhansi pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Jhansi, Charge Sheet dated 28.08.2019 and cognizance order as well as summoning order dated 15.03.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Jhansi in pursuance of compromise dated 05.11.2024. It is further prayed that further proceeding of the aforesaid Case No. 2182 of 2021 (State Vs. Banti Shakya), arising out of Case Crime No. 160 of 2019, Under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Premnagar, District-Jhansi pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Jhansi may kindly be stayed during pendency of the present application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court, so that the Justice may be done, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that during the pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the term of the compromise entered into by the parties was reduced in writing by way of compromise deed dated 05.11.2024. It appears that same was filed before court below. The copy of the compromise deed has been brought on record and is at page 75 of the paper book. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, an application dated 05.11.2024 was filed by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 before court below duly supported by the affidavit of the prosecutrix praying therein that criminal proceedings of aforementioned case be terminated in view of the compromise so entered into by the parties. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that impugned criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court. He further submits that 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, the present application is liable to be allowed. 5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party- 1 has vehemently opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the prohibition issued by the Apex Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR OnLine 2019 SC 1716, there can be no compromise in matters of rape and sexual assault. As such, the compromise entered into by the parties is meaningless. He therefore contends that no benefit can be derived by the parties from the compromise entered into by the parties. As such, present application is liable to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 has not opposed the present application. He submits that he has received instructions not to oppose this application. He further submits that it is an admitted fact that the parties have entered into compromise. 7. Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel representing prosecutrix, first informant, opposite party-2 this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application under Section 528 BNSS is not only borne out from the record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to any other judgements of the Supreme Court. In view of above, no good grounds now exists to entertain the present application. 8. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 9. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 YK Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad