RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA @ RAJESH JARRAHAversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

               APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27781 of 2024

Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Jarraha
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Abhishek Narayan             Pandey,     Mukul
                                Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rahul Yadav

Court No. - 81
                   HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the from the injury
report, it reflects that there is no incised wound or any gun shot injury has
been sustained by the injured. It is further submitted that parties have settled
their dispute amicably outside the Court and compromise had taken place
between them and the same has been filed along with the instant application.
Earlier, this Court had directed the parties to appear before the Court below
for verification of compromise. By the said order, the Court below was
further directed to send a verification report.

3. As per report, the parties had appeared before the trial Court, who were
identified by their respective counsels and the compromise was verified by
the trial court on 06.01.2025.

4. 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.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for O.P. no.2 do
not dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. 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:
                                                          A482 No. 27781 of 2024
                                2

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
                                                                                              A482 No. 27781 of 2024
                                                                     3

                                    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. 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 is liable to be
                                    allowed.

                                    8. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed and the entire
                                    proceedings entire proceeding of S.T. No. 776 of 1998 (State Vs. Jamuna
                                    and Others) now Case No. 1073A of 2005 (State Vs. Kachremal) arising out
                                    of Case Crime No. 115A of 1994 u/s 147, 452, 323, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police
                                    Station- Khair, District- Aligarh, pending in the court of Additional District
                                    Judge Court No. 6, Aligarh are hereby quashed.
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Akbar
                                                                                            (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad