Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137314 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37399 of 2024 Applicant :- Nitin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Niyaj Ahamad Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Niyaj Ahamad, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred with a prayer to quash entire proceeding of Case no. 5275/9 of 2024 (State vs. Nitin) arising out of Case Crime no. 60 of 2024 under sections 354A, 354B, 452, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, PS- Garhipukhta, District Shamli as well as charge sheet dated 07.09.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 15.10.2024 passed by Additional Dsitrict and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Shamli. 3. In compliance of earlier order dated 01.04.2025 passed by co- ordinate Bench of this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Shamli and the same is marked as Flag 'A' wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified on dated 23.05.2025 in presence of both the parties. 4. Sri Niyaj Ahamad, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State 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. 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. 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 Case no. 5275/9 of 2024 (State vs. Nitin) arising out of Case Crime no. 60 of 2024 under sections 354A, 354B, 452, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, PS- Garhipukhta, District Shamli, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicant herein namely Nitin. 9. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed. 10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad