Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18430 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2634 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Muin @ Muin And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. Sri Rahul Kumar Singh, 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 applicants have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 15.07.2009, issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), in Case No. 126 of 2009 (Sessions Trial No. 544 of 2010), arising out of Case Crime No. 314A/2008, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station - Hasanganj, District - Lucknow, in the light of compromise dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure - 7 to the affidavit filed in support of application). 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that this Court by means of order dated 19.11.2024, passed in Application U/S 482 No. 10398 of 2024, directed the parties to appear before trial Court for verification of the compromise dated 24.10.2024. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the trial Court and the Court has verified the compromise and a report dated 07.12.2024 to this effect has been submitted for perusal of this Court. Therefore, the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case may be quashed in view of the compromise dated 24.10.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants 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 proceedings of the aforesaid case 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 applicants finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings 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 will be served by allowing the applicants to be prosecuted in the said trial, therefore the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed, accordingly this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench