HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24504 of 2025 Court No. - 92 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants had assailed the summoning order passed by learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) DAA Mainpur, in Special Trial No.48 of 2017 (State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 446 of 2016, under Sections 307, 398 IPC, Police Station Bewar, District Mainpuri. 3. On the request of applicants relegated the parties to the court below to get the compromise pleaded by the applicants and said to have entered between the parties on 26.09.2024. He next submitted that the trial court has verified the said compromise on 26.09.2024 as per direction of this Court vide order dated 10.06.2025 and a copy of verification order has been filed with present petition, as annexure No.8 to the affidavit alongwith copy of compromise. Therefore, it is prayed that the proceedings of trial court may kindly be quashed in terms of said compromise. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the various pronouncements including the judgments passed in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012, 10 SCC 303], Narindra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1799 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 observed as under:- "15. Considering the law on me point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mukesh Kumar Gupta And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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: 15.2. 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; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the 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. 15.4. 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/delicate 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. 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 impact 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 conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter compromise, etc. 5. In view of the above, the proceedings of trial court in Special Trial No.48 of 2017 (State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 446 of 2016, under Sections 307, 398 IPC, Police Station Bewar, District Mainpuri the present application is allowed and NA528 No. 24504 of 2025 2 consequently, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for necessary compliance. September 10, 2025 Ashish/- NA528 No. 24504 of 2025 3 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad