Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27159 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3918 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Keshara And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and Sri Ankit Kumar Porwal, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing power/ Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 2. By means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 369 of 2014; Kailashi Devi Versus Angad and others, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, relating to Police Station Jahangirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the court of learned Civil Jduge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, in the light of compromise. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that this Court by means of order dated 04.03.2025, directed the parties to appear before learned trial court on 17.03.2025 for verification of the compromise dated 17.01.2025. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the trial court on the date fixed and the trial court has verified the compromise and a report dated 19.042025 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 17.01.2025. 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 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 :- 8.5.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench