Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16250 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2299 of 2025 Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey,Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. Sri Saket Kumar Gupta, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, same is taken on record. 2. By means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.11.2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Barabanki, in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2023 - Anuj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Police Station - Loni Katra, District Barabanki (filed against order dated 01.10.2022) as well as prayer for quashing order dated 01.10.2022, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki in Case No. 474 of 2021 - Neetu Devi Vs. Anuj Kumar Verma, in the light of compromise dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure - 4 to the affidavit filed in support of application). 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that this Court by means of order dated 22.01.2025, directed the parties to file the compromise and appear before the concerned Court within four weeks for verification of the compromise dated 02.12.2024. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Court concenred on the date fixed and the Court below has verified the compromise and a report/order dated 01.02.2025 to this effect has been submitted for perusal of this Court. Therefore, the orders passed by the appellate Court as well as the trial Court may be quashed in view of the compromise dated 02.12.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicant as well as opposite party no. 2 have compromised the dispute and as such opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the present case against the applicants. 5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate have stated that they have no objection in case the impugned orders are quashed in the light of the compromise. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably. 8. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the impugned orders as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. 9. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the applicants and the private respondents and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the applicant to be prosecuted in the said trial, therefore the impugned orders dated 10.11.2023 and 01.10.2022 are hereby quashed, accordingly this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench