AJAYAB SINGH @ JAYAB AND 3 OTHERSversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

               APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29569 of 2024

Ajayab Singh @ Jayab And 3 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Rama Shanker Mishra, Suresh Dhar
                                Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vinay Kumar Tripathi, G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Vinay Kumar Tripathi
learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that the parties have
settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and compromise had taken
place between them on 26.02.2024 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 17.09.2026.

4. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and
opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, 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:-
                                                          A482 No. 29569 of 2024
                              2

"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
                                                                                                A482 No. 29569 of 2024
                                                                     3

                                         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. 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 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the
                                    entire proceedings of Session Trial No.583 of 2014 arising out of Case
                                    Crime No.268A of 2013, under Sections 323, 324, 325 IPC, Police Station
                                    Sindhauli, District Shahjahanpur pending in the court of Additional Sessions
                                    Judge/FTC-1st, Shahjahanpur, are hereby quashed.

                                    September 28, 2026
                                    Ajeet
                                                                                              (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
AJEET KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad