HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25854 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Akaram, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Anuj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash charge sheet dated 12.10.2011 as well as entire criminal proceedings on the basis of amicable settlement/compromise between the parties in Criminal Case S.T. no. 85 of 2016 in Case Crime no. 280 of 2011 under sections 323, 324, 504 IPC, PS- Bidhuna, District Auraiya. 3. In compliance of earlier order dated 3.9.2025 passed by this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned Sessions Judge, Auraiya and the same is appended to order sheet wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified on dated 30.9.2025 in presence of both the parties. 4. Sri Anuj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicants. 5. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties and it has been submitted that there would be no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Akaram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anuj Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Om Prakash And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 58 of the said judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. 7. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of Criminal Case S.T. no. 85 of 2016 in Case Crime no. 280 of 2011 under sections 323, 324, 504 IPC, PS- Bidhuna, District Auraiya, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants namely Om Prakash, Maharaj Singh, Rajeev and Avadhesh. 9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. 10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within three weeks from today. 11. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he/she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he/she may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application. October 28, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 25854 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad