Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144316 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16762 of 2021 Applicant :- Deepak Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Jatan Yadav Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit along with certified copy of statements of the parties, certified copy of the compromise application and compromise verification order, today in court, which are taken on record. 2. Office is directed to proceed accordingly. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, learned AGA representing State-respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 4. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 638/2020 [State of U.P. Vs. Rocky Gupta & another], arising out of Case Crime No. 0281/2017, U/ s 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Auncha, Mainpuri, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mainpuri, and to stay the further entire proceedings against the applicant in the aforementioned case. 5. During pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 19.11.2024, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, orders dated 19.11.2024 is quoted herein below: "1. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 has filed joint affidavit of applicant and the contesting respondents/opposite parties, which is already on record as Annexure-9 to this application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.2 and 3. 3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC praying to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.638/2020 (State of UP v. Rocky Gupta and another) arising out of Case Crime No.0281/2017, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station- Aunchha, District- Mainpuri, pending in the court of learned ACJM-I, Mainpuri, on the basis of the affidavits submitted by the opposite party nos.2 and 3. 4. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Learned counsel for the applicant has laid emphasis on the certified copy of the application dated 06.03.2021 supported by an affidavit of respondent no.2 (first informant) and respondent no.3 (injured). Certified copy of the application and the supporting affidavit are collectively filed as Annexure No.9 to this petition. It is further submitted that in changed scenario, no dispute remains between the parties and they have buried the hatchet and wants to live peacefully. At present, there is no grudge against each other, therefore, to observe peace and tranquility between them, instant criminal proceedings may be decided on the basis of the compromise. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 has nodded the submissions as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and admitted the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties. He has pressed joint affidavit and contended that in the changed circumstances, wherein parties have entered into compromise, opposite party nos.2 and 3 are no longer inclined to pursue the criminal proceedings against the accused (present applicant). Therefore, proceedings may be decided on the basis of the compromise. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in relegating the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. 7. In this conspectus, as above, both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned on 10/11.12.2024 to get their compromise verified. Learned court concerned shall verify the same in presence of both the parties after recording their statements and submit compromise verification report before this Court within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties. 8. List this matter on 17.02.2025 before appropriate Court along with the compromise verification report submitted/sent by the Trial Court, if any. 9. Until further order(s) of this Court, further proceedings arising out of Case No.638/2020 (State v. Rockey Gupta and another) arising out of Case Crime No.0281 of 2017, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station- Aunchha, District- Mainpuri shall remain stayed." 6. In compliance of the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Court, learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)-I, Mainpuri has verified the compromise vide order dated 11.12.2024. As per compromise verification order (Annex. No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit), both the parties appeared before the court below and were identified by their respective counsels. The contents of the compromise (Annex) have been spelled out to the parties who have admitted the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties. 7. It is submitted that arising out of Case Crime No. 281 of 2017, co-accused have resorted to two remedies. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by co-accused Deepak Gupta (applicant herein) and another co-accused Rocky Gupta has preferred a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, being Matter U/A 227 No. 8113 of 2023. All the accused have signed the common agreement and learned court concerned has submitted its compromise verification report in the connected Matter U/A 227 No. 8113 of 2023. In the present case, certified copy of compromise and compromise verification order has been filed along with supplementary affidavit today. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits 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 hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant 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. 9. In a recent 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 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." 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties. 13. 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. 14. 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 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed. 15. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Sumit K. Digitally signed by :- SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad