HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20863 of 2023 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Ratnesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamla Shanker Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/complainant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. 3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers:- "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 117 of 2018 CNR. No. UPCD010024672018 Hari Shankar Chourasiya Vs. Suraj Chourasiya, U/s 363, 366, 376, I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act P.S. Balua District Chandauli on the basis of out of court compromise between the parties pending in the court of Special Judge (Pocso Act) Chandauli and quash the Summoning order dated 30/04/2019 issued U/s 363, 366, 376, I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act against the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Chandauli in complaint case no. 117 of 2018. And further be pleased to quash the order dated 04/04/2023 passed by the Special Judge (Pocso Act) Chandauli by which learned Special Judge rejected the application 31/03/2023 presented by the complainant to withdraw his complaint case no. 117 of 2018. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ratnesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kamla Shanker Pathak Suraj Chanu Chourasiya @ Suraj Chourasiya .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P.And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) It further be prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the summoning order dated 30/04/2019 U/s 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act issued against applicant by Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Court No.1, Chandauli in complaint case no. 117 of 2018 CNR. No. UPCD010024672018 Hari Shankar Chourasiya Vs. Suraj Chourasiya and effect and operation of order dated 04/04/2023 passed by Special Judge (Pocso Act) Chandauli in complaint no. 117 of 2018 (Hari Shankar Chourasiya Vs. Suraj Chourasiya) during the pendency of aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of court and on the basis of compromise the applicant filed the present application before this Court in which an order for verification of the compromise was passed on 17.12.2025. It is argued that in compliance of the said order of this Court, the parties have filed the order of this Court along with certified copy of the supplementary affidavit and its annexure being the compromise deed dated 26.11.2025 before the concerned court for its verification after which the concerned court has verified the said compromise vide its order dated 02.2.2026, copy of the said verification order has been placed on record by the office through its report dated 3.2.2026. It is argued that the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the trial court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the applicants and therefore the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 could not dispute the factum of compromise and submits that he has no objection to it. 6. Learned State counsel although opposed the prayer for quashing but could not dispute the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties which was duly verified by the concerned trial court. 7. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of A482 No. 20863 of 2023 2 (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed. 8. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the impugned proceedings, summoning order and the order dated 04/04/2023 as prayed for by the applicant(s). 10. The present application is allowed. 11. The impugned proceedings, summoning order and the order dated 04/04/2023 as prayed for by the applicant of the said case are hereby quashed. March 18, 2026 Naresh A482 No. 20863 of 2023 3 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad