HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26990 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant applicant u/s 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.589 of 2021 (State Vs. Sandeep Gaur), arising out of Case Crime No. 317 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Nebuwa Navrangiya, District Kushinagar, pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna, on the basis of compromise. 3. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that an F.I.R. has been lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 10.11.2020 under Section 363 I.P.C. stating that his minor daughter has left the house along with applicant, who is a teacher in English Language and gives tuition to the children. An apprehension was expressed that it is the applicant who enticed away the minor away from the guardianship of the informant. Subsequently, the prosecutrix was recovered and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has stated that the prosecutrix and applicant have got married and finally an agreement was filed before this Court on 12.08.2025 stating that both of them are living together as husband and wife. He prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the said Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Prasad Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sandeep Gaur .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) compromise has been verified by the Special Judge POSCO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna vide order dated 12.08.2025. Copy of the letter of Special Judge POSCO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna is placed on record. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have no objection if the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings are quashed in terms of the compromise between the parties. 6. 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 the present application pending. 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 NA528 No. 26990 of 2025 2 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 vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 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." 7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, 8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. NA528 No. 26990 of 2025 3 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, proceedings of Session Trial No.589 of 2021 (State Vs. Sandeep Gaur), arising out of Case Crime No. 317 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Nebuwa Navrangiya, District Kushinagar, pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna, qua the present applicants is hereby quashed. September 18, 2025 AS NA528 No. 26990 of 2025 4 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad