HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23775 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and Sri Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 2. This petition has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 2758 of 2021 - State Vs. Aslam and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 141 of 2019, under Sections 376D, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station - Manjhanpur, District - Kaushambi pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi as well as summoning order dated 19.02.2021, issued in the aforesaid case. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that first information report was lodged by the prosecutrix i.e. opposite party no. 2 on 30.09.2019, being Case Crime No. 141 of 2019, under Sections 376D, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station - Manjhanpur, District - Kaushambi, alleging that on 04.01.2019 at 8.00PM when Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vivek Tripathi Mohd. Aslam And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the prosecutrix was returning home after purchasing some goods and she could not find conveyance to reach her home, when the applicants one of whom was driver of Vikram Tempo asked her whether he can drop her. The prosecutrix sat inside the Tempo in which four persons were already sitting and instead of going in the direction of her home, the tempo stared going to another direction stating that he has some work on the way, subsequently, he took the vikram tempo near Kadipur next to river besides a Mahua tree where the other persons sitting in tempo threatened her and subjected her to sexual assault. The prosecutrix tried to lodge FIR, which was not registered and consequently, it was lodged on the interference of the senior police officials. 4. After investigation, final report was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi. Notices were issued to the applicants. The prosecutrix appeared and filed her objections where she has supported the sequence of events which were narrated in the FIR and the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the aforesaid circumstances relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, issued summons to the applicants under Sections 376D, 323, 506 IPC on 19.02.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that subsequently, opposite party no. 2 - prosecutrix has also filed another affidavit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi which has been NA528 No. 23775 of 2025 2 sworn on 04.06.2025, stating that she was not aware of the contents of the protest petition and in para 5 she has clearly denied the allegations levelled against the applicants. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, applicants have prayed for accepting the compromise and quashing the proceedings of the case initiated against them. 6. From the perusal of the aforesaid material it is noticed that extremely serious and specific allegations were levelled against the applicants in the FIR. The allegations were sustained in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix. When final report was filed, the prosecutrix has filed protest petition again reiterating aforesaid allegations and it is only after summons have been issued to the applicants that she has changed her version and denied all the previous versions. 7. Learned counsel for the parties submit that parties have amicably compromised their dispute, therefore, the aforesaid case may be decided in terms of the compromise between the parties. 4. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court below. 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the Court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the parties to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. NA528 No. 23775 of 2025 3 6. For a period of one month, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that after final report was filed before the trial Court, which was at the behest of the prosecutrix and on the protest petition preferred by her summons have been issued and subsequently another affidavit has been filed by her totally changing her stand and now stating that no such incident has occurred. 8. Accordingly, even if the compromise is verified, it shall be fit case for the trial of the prosecutrix - opposite party no. 2 under Section 379 of BNS. Accordingly, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi is directed to proceed against prosecutrix under appropriate provisions for filing false affidavit, in case it is so made from the perusal of the documents as discussed herein above. 9. Original copy of compromise, if filed before this Court along with the present application, be returned to the learned counsel for applicants, as per Rules of Court. 10. With aforesaid directions, the application stands disposed of. September 18, 2025 A. Verma NA528 No. 23775 of 2025 4 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad