HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34137 of 2024 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash entire proceeding of Session Case no. 574 of 2024 (State vs. Ajay @ Arun & another) under sections 354, 363 IPC and section 7/8 & 16/17 of POCSO Act, 2012, PS- Mainather, District Moradabad arising out of Case Crime no. 270 of 2023 including charge sheet dated 18.09.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 06.07.2024 on the ground of compromise dated 17.08.2024/22.08.2024. 3. In compliance of earlier order dated 29.5.2025 passed by this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Session Judge, Moradabad and the same is appended to order sheet wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified on dated 18.06.2025 in presence of both the parties. 4. Learned counsel for opposite parties showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicant. 5. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties and it has been submitted that there would be no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajay Alias Arun And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 58 of the said judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. 7. 7. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of Session Case no. 574 of 2024 (State vs. Ajay @ Arun & another) under sections 354, 363 IPC and section 7/8 & 16/17 of POCSO Act, 2012, PS- Mainather, District Moradabad arising out of Case Crime no. 270 of 2023, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants herein. 9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. 10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. 11. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed then in that event he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application. September 23, 2025 Shaswat A482 No. 34137 of 2024 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad