Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87483 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4657 of 2017 Applicant :- Mohit And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Shukla,Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ayush Mishra,G.A.,Hridai Narayan Sharma,Manish Kumar Tripathi,Udai Pratap Singh,Yogendra Misra Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for applicants, Shri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that there was some dispute between the applicants and opposite party no.2. As the applicants have settled their dispute out of the court and the same has also been verified by the trial court vide order dated 09.07.2024, which is also annexed as Annexure no. SA-4 to the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the application. 3. From perusal of record, it transpires that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties and they have entered into a settlement agreement on 02.07.2024. The settlement/compromise deed has been duly verified by the learned trial court on 09.07.2024, which has also been enclosed as Annexure No. SA-4 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 03.09.2024 in support of the application. As per the aforesaid agreement, parties have settled all the disputes and differences amicably and they do not want to prosecute the pending cases against each other. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State and opposite party no. 2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute before the trial court, which is apparent from the Settlement Agreement dated 02.07.2024 placed on the record, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceeding of S.T. No. 82 of 2015 (State vs. Mohit and others) pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Mathura arising out of Case Crime No. 162 of 2015, under Section 353, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 8 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura are hereby quashed. 8. The Settlement Agreement may be treated as part of the order. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad