Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6659 Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42740 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Babu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Yadav,Shani Dev Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Kumar Singh,Vandana Rai Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Ms. Vandana Rai, Advocate states that she has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the office on 11.12.2024 but the same is not on record. 3. Office to trace out the said vakalatnama and place the same on record and also make a note in the order sheet regarding the same. 4. Heard Sri Deepak Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Vandana Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 5. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to allow this application under 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 494 of 2008, State Vs. Shree Ram and others, arising out of Case Crime No.133 of 1995, u/s 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Utraon, District Prayagraj pending before A.C.J.M. Court No.08, Prayagraj and further with the prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case during the pendency of this application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had earlier filed Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.10130 of 2024 (Ram Babu Vs. State of U.P and another) in which vide order dated 28.5.2024, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the parties to appear before the concerned court for filing a proper compromise deed along with said order and directed the trial court to verify the said compromise, copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.5 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. In pursuance of the said order, the applicant appeared before the trial court and filed the compromise deed. It is argued that the court concerned vide order dated 24.6.2024 verified the said compromise, copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.7 to the affidavit filed in support of present application, as such the proceedings against the applicant may be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the State admitted the fact of compromise and stated that he has no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed against the applicant. 8. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably, the said compromise has been also been verified by the trial court. 9. 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. 10. 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 proceedings as prayed for by the applicant(s). 11. The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed subject to the applicant depositing Rs.5,000/- before the concerned trial court which shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Authority of the district. 12. The present application is allowed. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad