Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73641 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15868 of 2025 Applicant :- Yash Preet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aneet Kumar Baghel,Shishir Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Divya Yadav,G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Pal Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Shishir Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pal, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Yash Preet, who is a charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer:- "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application and Quash the further proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 15.04.2014 as well as cognizance Order Date 20.05.2014 as well as Summoning Order dated 05.06.2014 in Sessions Trial No. 331 of 2014 in Case Crime No. 358 of 2014 (State Vs. Yash Preet) under Sections 376, 511, 504, 506, 328, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station-Sector-58 NOIDA, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/POCSO-I Gautam Budh Nagar. Otherwise the applicants will suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pass to stay the further proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 15.04.2014 as well as cognizance Order Date 20.05.2014 as well as Summoning Order dated 05.06.2014 in Sessions Trial No. 331 of 2014 in Case Crime No. 358 of 2014 (State Vs. Yash Preet) under Sections 376, 511, 504, 506, 328, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station-Sector-58 NOIDA, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/POCSO-I Gautam Budh Nagar. Otherwise the applicants will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Or to pass any other which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and cirumstances of the case in the interest of justice." 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that during pendency of aforementioned Sessions Trial, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, they entered into a compromise. Subsequently, the terms of the compromise were reduced to writing by way of a compromise deed dated 12.04.2023. Copy of same is on record at pages 37 and 38 of the paper book. 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. Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have not entered into a compromise, therefore, no useful purpose shall now be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused-applicant are not only remote but also bleak. On the above conspectus, learned counsel for applicant thus submits that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court. 5. At this juncture, the Court raised a pointed query as to whether the said compromise has been filed before Court below or not. 6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the said compromise has been duly filed before Court below and the certified copy of the same has been brought on record, part of which is at pages 37 and 38 of the paper book. 7. Par contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party- 1 has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is facing trial under Section 376 IPC also, therefore, no compromise can be entered into by the parties. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716, the learned A.G.A. submits that it has now been held by the Apex Court that there can be no compromise in matters relating to rape and sexual assault. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that the compromise entered into by the parties is misconceived. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pal, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 does not oppose the present application. 9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 10. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pal, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 are clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 11. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 12. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Vinay Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad