Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 15.08.2020 along with cognizance order dated 20.10.2020, passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) / F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Meerut as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 1127 of 2020 (State vs. Rahul Jain and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 23 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3/4D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) / F.T.C. (C.A.W.), Meerut on the basis of compromise taken place between the parties.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that it is matrimonial dispute between the parties and parties had amicably settled their dispute outside the court. A compromise deed has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.

4. This Court vide order dated 02.02.2023 has sent the compromise deed to the court below for verification.

5. As per report of Civil Judge (S.D.) / F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Meerut, dated 16.02.2023, parties have appeared before the Court below on 14.02.2023 who were identified by their respective counsels and the compromise deed was verified by the Court below.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 [LQ/SC/2019/430 ;] ">(2019) 5 SCC 688 [LQ/SC/2019/430 ;] [LQ/SC/2019/430 ;] 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 I.P.C. 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 I.P.C. 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 I.P.C. in the F.I.R. 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 I.P.C. 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 I.P.C. 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 herein above;

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."

8. In view of the aforesaid fact, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties had already been verified by the Court below, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and proceedings of aforesaid case is hereby quashed.