HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2018 of 2023 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing the proceeding of Case No.9433 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0001 of 2022, under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC P.S. Bilsi, District Budaun pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Budaun. 3. During pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 16.2.2023, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order dated 16.2.2023 is quoted herein below:- "Heard Sri Dewesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing the proceeding of Case No.9433 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0001 of 2022, under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC P.S. Bilsi, District Budaun pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Budaun. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after investigation charge sheet has been submitted meanwhile in better sense the parties have come to terms and after burying their differences have settled down the dispute outside the court, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court to compromise deed dated 09.12.2022, signed by both the contesting parties. This compromise deed is annexed as Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dewesh Kumar Tiwari, Kapil Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Kumar Bharat Singh And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Annexure 9 to the application. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, let this compromise be placed before concerned Magistrate who would look into the matter and after summoning contesting parties would verify the covenants of the compromise as well as signatories and pass a suitable order within next 20 days regarding the said compromise. Put up on 22.03.2023 as fresh so as to enable to learned counsel for the applicants to file supplementary affidavit annexing the order of Magistrate regarding the verification of the said compromise. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in Case No.9433 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0001 of 2022, under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Bilsi, District Budaun." 4. In compliance of order dated 16.2.2023, the applicants have filed supplementary affidavit along with certified copy of the compromise application and compromise verification order dated 11.4.2023 which have been endorsed at the rear side of last page of compromise. As per the compromise verification order, both the parties were identified by their respective counsels. Contents of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties in open Court, and they have no objection to the compromise. Accordingly, compromise has been verified. For ready reference, compromise verification order dated 11.4.2023 is quoted herein below:- "िद० 11.04.2023 आज यह समझौतानामा वादी िदनेश की ओर से दािखल िकया गया। प्रथम पक्ष की ओर से वादी श्री िदनेश उपिस्थत इनका फोटो िवद्वान अिधवक्ता श्री प्रदीप कु मार सक्सेना द्वारा प्रमािणत िकया गया। िद्वतीय पक्ष की ओर से भारतिसह, नवाबिसह, व जयके श उपिस्थत इनके फोटो िवद्वान अिधवक्ता श्री नरेन्द्र िसह द्वारा प्रमािणत िकये गये। समझौतानामा मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश िद० 16.02.2023 के अनुपालन में आज िद० 11.04.2023 को दािखल िकया गया है । समझौतानामा खुले न्यायालय में पक्षकारों को पढ़कर सुनाया गया उपभयपक्ष द्वारा कोई आपित्त नहीं की गई। अतः समझौतानामा तस्दीक िकया जाता है । A.C.J.M.-II Budaun " 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) A482 No. 2018 of 2023 2 Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. 6. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :- "15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences A482 No. 2018 of 2023 3 are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 7. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is finally decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the present case against the applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties. 9. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice. A482 No. 2018 of 2023 4 10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed. 11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower court for necessary action. September 23, 2025 P.P. A482 No. 2018 of 2023 5 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad