Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133803 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9726 of 2018 Applicant :- Anil Katiyar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Damodar Singh,Devendra Vikram Singh,Rinki Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 29.5.2017 and cognizance order dated 18.1.2018, in S.T. No.17 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.72 of 2017, State Vs. Anil Katiyar and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 SC/ST Act, Police Station Derapur, District Kanpur Dehat pending in the court of SC/ST Judge, Kanpur Dehat, on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 18.7.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 29.7.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicants. He further contended that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the applicants and the same may be quashed. 5. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement which is duly verified by the court concerned. It is further submitted that he would have no objection in case criminal proceedings are put to an end. He further submits that in view of settlement there is virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal proceedings. 6. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings in the present case had essentially been an outcome of a dispute and there are no such over bearing circumstances for which the applicants ought to be prosecuted even after the parties has entered into a settlement. Needless to observe that with the present stand of the parties in terms of their settlement, there is practically no chance of recording conviction, even if the case under the F.I.R. in question is put to trial. In other words, entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility. On the contrary, looking to the nature of dispute and the fact that the disputants have compromised and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings in question are quashed. 7. It would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end. 8. In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter has been mutually settled between the parties in view of the compromise dated 18.7.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 9. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. 10. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 VMA Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad