Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66428 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22099 of 2024 Applicant :- Muttey @ Chhutan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Vikas Tiwar, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that there was some dispute between the applicant and opposite party no.2 and now they have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and compromise had taken place between them on 18.5.2024 and the same has been verified by Magistrate, Ist Class, Juvenila Justice Board, Jhanai vide order dated 20.1.2025 Copy of order date has been annexed. 3. On perusal of order dated 20.1.2025, it transpires that the parties had appeared before the trial Court, who were identified by their respective counsels and the compromise was verified by the trial Court. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash 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; ii) 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; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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; iv) 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/delegate 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 paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) 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 impart 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 accused; 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 into a compromise etc." 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the trial Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and entire proceeding of Case No. 12 of 2024 (Mamta Vs. Muttey @ Chhutan) arising out Complaint Case No. 275 of 2009 as well as impugned summoning order dated 1.3.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi under Section 392, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gursarai, District Jhansi pending in the court of Juvenile Justice Board Jhansi are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Kumar Manish Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad