HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45737 of 2023 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Though counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties but they do not want to press the matter on merit, therefore, this Court proceeds to dispose off the instant application on the basis of compromise deed settled between the parties. 2. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anand Sagar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. 3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.3135 of 2011 (Kavita Vs. Nardev & Others) under Sections 376/511, 506 IPC, Police Station-Mahila Thana, Rampur, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.)/Fast Track Court, Rampur on the ground of compromise taken place between the accused applicants and opposite party no.2 and with further prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid criminal complaint case. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 08.04.2024, the matter was referred for verification of the compromise dated 27.09.2023 and the same has been duly verified by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.)/Fast Track Court (Offence against Women), Rampur on 13.05.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have not committed any offence and only due to ulterior motive instant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anand Sagar Shukla, G.A., Indra Pal Yadav, Anand Sagar Shukla 1268/2023 Veerpal And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) false complaint case was initiated against the applicants. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the present dispute arises out of personal discord between the applicants and the opposite party No. 2. It is also argued that the opposite party No. 2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the Court concerned and, therefore, the proceedings of complaint case be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 admits the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the proceedings of complaint case pending against the applicants is quashed. 8. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. 9. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. 10. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench Judgment in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012)10 SCC 303, has held that "But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others, vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that "even in the non compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal A482 No. 45737 of 2023 2 proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases." 12. Both the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending amongst them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the law as cited above, the present case is a good case for exercise of power by the Court to quash charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceedings. 13. The dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature that has been mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer. 14. The present application for quashing filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. comes within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025, SLP (Crl.) No.11642 of 2019 dated 02.09.2025. 15. In view of the above, the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.3135 of 2011 (Kavita Vs. Nardev & Others) under Sections 376/511, 506 IPC, Police Station-Mahila Thana, Rampur, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.)/Fast Track Court, Rampur on the ground of compromise taken place between the accused applicants and opposite party no.2 dated 27.09.2023 are hereby quashed. 16. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. September 10, 2025 Zafar A482 No. 45737 of 2023 3 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad