HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28677 of 2024 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Heard Sri Kandarb Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pawan Kumar, learned advocate, holding the brief for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 30.09.2022 and cognizance order dated 01.12.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.1014 of 2024 (State Vs. Amansheel), arising out of Case Crime No.181 of 2022, under Sections 376, 328, 506 I.P.C. and 67A Information Technology Act, Police Station New Agra, District Agra, pending before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no.2 has made false and frivolous allegation of taking out a video recording and in the garb of this video recording has made excess. The opposite party no.2 was a teacher in the coaching institute run by the applicant. There was certain dispute, which led to the lodging of false F.I.R., with delay. After the investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted of the rape and making of the indecent video and by administering the intoxicant to her. It is thereafter, the parties have entered into compromise. Hence, he seeks interference of this Court. The opposite party no.2 is already married and therefore, he does not want to prosecute the case. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 admits the factum of compromise between the parties. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards short counter affidavit and annexed compromise at page no.6. It is mentioned in the compromise that there was some misconception between the parties, which led to the lodging of the F.I.R. 5. Learned A.G.A. submits that the matter pertains to heinous offence of rape. There is no provision of compounding of offence. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditi Srivastava, Kandarp Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Saurabh Srivastava Amansheel .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties as the F.I.R. has been made by the opposite party no.2 due to misconception of facts disclosed in the compromise affidavit. The opposite party no.2 is being represented by a counsel, who has made a specific mention that there is a misconception, which was the basis of F.I.R. and subsequently, the opposite party no.2 gave her statement accordingly, which led to submission of charge sheet. The parties have buried their hatches. 7. There is no point in getting the trial continued, when the parties have buried their differences as the star witness would not support the prosecution case. 8. Thus, the charge sheet and the proceeding arose out of case crime number mentioned above is hereby quashed. Consequently, the proceedings of trial also quashed. 9. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed accordingly. September 8, 2025 Shivangi A482 No. 28677 of 2024 2 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad