HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6968 of 2013 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application has been filed with the following prayer:- "To quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 01.07.2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 1575-A of 2005 u/s 419, 420, 467, 471, 472 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Faizabad and the cognizance order dated 14.09.2006 passed by learned C.J.M., Faizabad in Crl. Case No. 11650 of 2006 ." 3. The applicant and the respondent no.2 are present today. They have been identified by their respective counsel. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent no.2 belong to same family and they are cousins. The prosecution in question arose due to some property dispute. The charge- sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer, after that, the present petition is preferred. During the pendency of the present petition, the issue has been resolved after passing the order by the revenue authority on the application for correction of map. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 has filed counter affidavit stating therein that he does not want to prosecute the applicant and wants to drop the proceedings, hence, indulgence of this Court is required. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Atul Kumar Bhaskar Sada Nand Mishra .....Applicant(s) The State Of U.P And Anr. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 concedes the submissions of the applicant's counsel and submits that the issue has already been resolved between the parties after passing the order by the competent authority for correction of map and the respondent no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant, hence, the proceedings may be quashed. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant. However, he does not contradict the aforesaid submissions. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant and the respondent no.2 are cousin and it seems that there is some property dispute between them. Admittedly, the issue has already been resolved between the parties after passing the order by the revenue authority regarding correction of map. In para 8 of the counter affidavit dated 04.08.2025 filed by the respondent no.2, he has categorically stated that the issue has already been resolved after passing the order by the revenue authority. Therefore, the impugned charge-sheet dated 01.07.2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 1575-A of 2005 (supra) and the cognizance order dated 14.09.2006 including the entire proceedings in pursuance thereof are set aside. 8. With the above observations, the application is allowed. 9. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court, forthwith. October 9, 2025 Arpan A482 No. 6968 of 2013 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench