HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4477 of 2023 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Lakshman Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Singh Sengar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Rajpal Singh, Smt. Santoshi Devi and Kumari Prabha Sengar, with the prayer to quash charge sheet dated 31.12.2014 and entire proceedings of Case No. 1082 of 2016, State vs. Rajpal Singh and others, under Section 308 IPC Police Station Gohan, District Jalaun arising out of Case Crime No. 620 of 2014, pending before the C.J.M., Orai, District Jalaun on the basis of compromise. It is further prayed to stay the effect and operation of the cognizance order dated 27.4.2016 and further proceedings of the said case during pendency of this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of court and on the basis of compromise the applicants filed this application before this Court in which an order for verification of the compromise was passed on 24.2.2023. It is argued that in compliance of the order dated 24.2.2023 of this Court, the parties have filed the order of this Court along with said compromise before the concerned court for its verification after which the concerned court has verified the said compromise vide its order dated 16.09.2023, copy of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lakshman Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Singh Sengar Rajpal Singh And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) report of the concerned trial court to the said effect is on the record which states that the said compromise has been verified by it on 05.4.2023. 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 State counsel and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 could not dispute the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties which was duly verified by the concerned trial court. 6. 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 (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. 7. 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 charge sheet and the proceedings as prayed for by the applicant(s). 8. The present application is allowed. 9. The impugned charge sheet and the proceedings of the said case are hereby quashed subject to the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 shall deposit Rs.20,000/- each before the concerned trial court which shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Authority of the district. May 5, 2026 Naresh A482 No. 4477 of 2023 2 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad