Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41449 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5715 of 2025 Applicant :- Paramjeet Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Digvijay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Digvijay Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hanjsarj Verma, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Abhishek Yadav, advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No.2, which is taken on record. Short Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant application, the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 22.08.2009 and the impugned cognizance/ summoning order dated 31.10.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 967 of 2012, under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC (CNR No. UPLK040047002012), arising out of FIR/ Case Crime No. 04 of 2009, Police Station- Hussainganj, District- Lucknow, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow, on the basis of compromise/ settlement deed dated 25.06.2024 entered into between the parties. 3. Learned counsels for the parties submit that they have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at the compromise. Compromise entered into between the parties have been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the application. The parties have confirmed the terms of the compromise. In the counter affidavit filed today, it is submitted that the opposite party No. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicant and does not want the present case to continue. Opposite party No. 2 does not have any objection, if the impugned proceedings against the applicant are quashed . 4. Opposite party No. 2 does not have any objection, if the impugned proceedings are quashed against the applicant. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. 7. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 967 of 2012, under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC (CNR No. UPLK040047002012), arising out of FIR/ Case Crime No. 04 of 2009, Police Station- Hussainganj, District- Lucknow, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow, are quashed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 (Manoj K.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench