Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18869 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2726 of 2025 Applicant :- Shri Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vayu Nandan Mishra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Mr. Yadu Nandan Mishra, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 today in Court is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, Mr. Yadu Nandan Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 3. By means of this application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (482 Cr.P.C.), the applicants have prayed following reliefs:- "to pass an order or direction for quashing of summoning order dated 18.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shravasti in Complaint Case No. 8921 of 2022 (Shyama Vs. Shri Devi and others) under Setions 323, 504, 506, 427, 451 and 380 IPC, Police Station Ikauna, District Shravasti as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may also be quashed." 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the parties have entered into a compromise (by means of compromise deed dated 18.02.2025), which has been verified by the trial court on 12.03.2025 in compliance of order passed by this Court on 04.03.2025 in Case:- Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1958 of 2025 (Shri Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and another. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid are quashed. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no. 2 have settled through compromise their private and civil disputes and as such opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no. 2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on. 7. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably and it is highly doubtful if the ingredients of the offence as alleged are made out. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between the parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present 482 Cr.P.C. petition stands allowed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench