Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27845 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4015 of 2025 Applicant :- Surya Kant Pandey @ Sanjay And 7 Others Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Dutt Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Bipin Dutt Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. 2. By means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the applicants in pursuance of the impugned summoning order dated 04.10.2023 passed by Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1422 of 2023 (Akhilesh Pandey Vs. Suryakant Pandey & Others) U/S 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC Police Station Gurbakashganj, District Raebareli in terms of the verified compromise deed dated 20.8.2024. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that this Court by means of order dated 06.02.2025 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 11308 of 2023 directed the parties to verify the compromise deed entered between the parties. In compliance of aforesaid order the compromise has been verified on 11.03.2025. Accordingly, present petition has been filed before this Court as per liberty granted to the parties with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the applicants in pursuance of the impugned summoning order dated 04.10.2023 passed by Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1422 of 2023 (Akhilesh Pandey Vs. Suryakant Pandey & Others) U/S 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC Police Station Gurbakashganj, District Raebareli in terms of the verified compromise deed dated 20.8.2024. 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 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 a 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 been arrived at between the applicants and the private respondents does not affect 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. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench