Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44352 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6156 of 2025 Applicant :- Ibnul Hassan And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Paritosh Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Avasheh Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Anamika Singh, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2, who has filed short counter affidavit which is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1389 of 2022, arising out of the Case Crime No. 005 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Fatanpur, District-Pratapgarh as well as charge- sheet dated 10.03.2021 and also summoning order dated 22.11.2022, on the ground that parties have arrived at settlement. 3. Petitioners have filed supplementary affidavit stating that they had earlier filed an APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6156 of 2025 No. 9051 of 2023 challenging the validity of the charge sheet and summoning order, which was disposed of by means of order dated 19.09.2023 directing that in case petitioner filed an application seeking bail the same shall be considered by the trial Court keeping in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I., (2021) 10 SCC 773. Thereafter, the applicants have been released on bail and subsequently, parties have entered into settlement and cause rise for filing the application. 4. The aforesaid case instituted on the basis of FIR lodged on 08.01.2021 stating that while the informant had gone to get a public toilet constructed under the direction of village Pradhan, the opposite parties forcibly restrained him from doing so. 5. After investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet dated 10.03.2021. During pendency of the proceedings, parties have entered into a settlement dated 24.07.2025 wherein it is recorded that the parties are residents of the same locality and the FIR was lodged under influence of some other person, after some dispute erupted between them. Now, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute mutually and have decided to close the criminal proceedings. The opposite party No.2 filed the short counter affidavit accepting the terms of compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing the proceedings. 6. In the case of Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: 17. ........where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482CrPC." 7. From the facts evident on record, it transpires that although the offence under Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act is involved in the present case, the FIR does not disclose that the alleged offence was committed because of the caste of the informant; parties have already resolved the dispute to restore amicable relations and in these circumstances, I am of the view that the continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicants could not served the interest of justice. 8. 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 petition is allowed and proceedings of roceedings of Criminal Case No. 1389 of 2022, arising out of the Case Crime No. 005 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Fatanpur, District-Pratapgarh as well as charge-sheet dated 10.03.2021 and also summoning order dated 22.11.2022, are hereby quashed. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Vinay/- Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench