Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145852 Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37463 of 2024 Applicant :- Luxman Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Yadav Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J. 1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manoj Yadav holding brief of Shri Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Shri Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the entire proceeding of cognizance order dated 23.11.2020 in S.T. No. 514 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2018, under sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Shyamdeurwa, District Maharajganj pending before learned additional Sessions Judge III, Maharajganj against the applicants on the basis of compromise between the applicants and opposite parties. It is also prayed to stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case during pendency of the present application. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. The copy of compromise entered into between the parties has been annexed as annexure no. 4 of the memo of the application wherein the compromise has been verified by the Court. At this stage, learned counsel further submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submit that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, he has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record. 6. Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion. 7. In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 8. The entire proceeding of cognizance order dated 23.11.2020 in S.T. No. 514 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2018, under sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Shyamdeurwa, District Maharajganj against the applicants is quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 SY Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad