HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7902 of 2025 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the charge sheet dated 06.04.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 08.0802024 taken by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division(/F.T.C. Court, Muzaffar nagar and entire proceeding of Case No. 15842 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Javed and Others) , arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2024, under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., District- Muzaffar Nagar, pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C. Court, Muzaffar Nagar on the basis of compromise. 3. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 11.03.2025, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order date 11.03.2025 passed by this Court is quoted herein below: "Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the parties have settled their dispute with regard to offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 IPC by way of compromise deed dated 25.10.2024. A copy of the certified compromise is Annexure-6 to this application. Both the parties are directed to appear before the court concerned within three weeks Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Kaushik Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Kumar, G.A. Javed And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P Through Its Principal Secretary (Home) And Another .....Opposite Party(s) for verification. The court concerned is directed to verify the compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant will file a supplementary affidavit annexing the certified copy of the verified compromise and verified proceeding of compromise till the next date of listing. Put up on 30.06.2025 as a fresh. Till the next date of listing, further proceeding of Case No. 15842 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Javed and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2024, under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Jansath, District Muzaffarnagar shall remain stayed against the applicants." 4. In compliance of the order dated 11.03.2025, learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit along with certified copy of the compromise application dated 25.10.2024 and compromise verification order dated 26.03.2025, which is endorsed on the rear side of first page of the compromise. As per compromise verification order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C. Court, Muzaffar Nagar, both the parties appeared before the court below and were identified by their respective counsels. The contents of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress. Accordingly, the compromise (paper no. 17/2) dated 25.10.2024 has been verified in presence of both the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that four injuries were inflicted upon the injured. One is linear abrasion, second is a lacerated wound size 2 x 0.5 cm, third and fourth are also linear abrasions. He next submits that no fatal injury has been caused to the injured. X-ray was advised for injury no.1; however, no abnormality has been detected in the X-ray. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the NA528 No. 7902 of 2025 2 hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. 7. In a judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :- "15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts NA528 No. 7902 of 2025 3 and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 8. In the matter of Narendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and in a recent judgment of Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2025, decided on 11.02.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expounded the scope of quashing the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. on the basis of compromise and concluded that mere mentioning of Section 307 I.P.C. should not be made basis of adopting a hands off approach. 9. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned. NA528 No. 7902 of 2025 4 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not want to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties. 11. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice. 12. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed. 13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. September 9, 2025 Sumit K. NA528 No. 7902 of 2025 5 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad