Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50927-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6917 of 2024 Petitioner :- Satyaveer Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Girja Shanker Sen,Krishna Dutt Awasthi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Sri K.D. Awasthi, learned counsel for the informant. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is praying to quash the F.I.R. dated 21.02.2023 registered as First Information Report dated 21.04.2024, registered as Case Crime No.0158 of 2024, under Sections-120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 125A IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District- Bareilly. 3. As the Court was apprised on 10.03.2025 that the parties have come to terms outside the Court and compromise has been arrived between them and, this Court had directed the parties to appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the settlement/compromise, who was to produce the parties to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate for verification of the said claim. The concerned Magistrate was directed to record the statements of the parties as to whether the terms and conditions set out in the alleged settlement/compromise had been fulfilled or not and submit report to this Court. 4. In pursuance of aforesaid order, C.J.M., Bareilly has submitted report dated 21.03.2025 after verification of compromise. 5. Learned A.G.A. has not disputed the aforesaid facts. 6. 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 vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 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." 7. In view of aforesaid facts of the case as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Narayan (supra), the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR dated First Information Report dated 21.04.2024, registered as Case Crime No.0158 of 2024, under Sections-120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 125A IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District- Bareilly is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 S.P. (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad