Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41148 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 863 of 2025 Applicant :- Mubeen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lakshman Singh Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party 1 and Mr. Lakshman Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party 2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant Mubeen, who is a charge cheeted accused and facing trial before Court below, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with the following prayer:- " It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- 1. quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 89/2021, "State vs Mubeen", arising out of case crime no. 248/2021, under section,, 376(3) IPC and 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station Konch, District Jalaun, pending before the court of Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Jalaun at Orai and its consequential orders in the terms of compromise. 2. stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 89/2021, "State vs Mubeen", arising out of case crime no. 248/2021, under section, ,376(3) IPC and 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station Konch, District Jalaun, pending before the court of Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Jalaun at Orai, during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court. 3. Pass any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that during pendency of above mentioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the terms of the compromise entered into by the parties were reduced to writing by way of a compromise deed. Photo copy of the said compromise deed has been brought on record and is at page 79 of the paper book. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against State. Once the parties have entered into compromise, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant as the chances of conviction of accused-applicant is now not only remote but also bleak. As such, the present application is liable to be allowed. 5. At this juncture, the Court raised a pointed query as to whether the said compromise has been filed before Court below or, the learned counsel for applicant fairly submits that the said compromise has not yet been filed before Court below. 6. In view of above, there is nothing substantial on record to conclude that the parties have entered into a compromise and the said compromise has been acted upon. 7. Apart from above, applicant is facing trial under Section 376 (3) IPC as well as under Sections 3/4 (2) POCSO Act. Apex Court in the case of Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 has held that there can be no compromise in matters of rape and sexual assault. Similarly, in the case of State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021, the Apex Court has observed that no compromise can be entered into by the parties in proceedings under the POCSO Act. As such, no benefit can be derived by the accused from the compromise so entered into by the parties. 8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 9. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 10. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 11. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 HSM Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad