Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33196 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1639 of 2025 Appellant :- Maiku And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and Sri Amit Pandey, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.s 2 and 3 and filed vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 2. By means of present criminal appeal under Section 14 (A) 1 of the S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, the appellants have prayed for quashing the order dated 3.10.2011 and charge sheet dated 29.9.2011 passed by Chief Judaical Magistrate pending before Sessions Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Shrawasti in Sessions trial No.90 of 2016 arising out of case crime No.647 of 2011 under Sectiosn 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (X) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, police station Sirsiya, District Shrawasti in the light of compromise deed dated 11.4.2025 (Annexure - 5 to the affidavit filed in support of application). 3.The facts of the case are that opposite party No.2 filed first information report on 5.6.2010 at around 10 AM, the son of the informant named Dhaniram had gone to the mango orchard of Maiku to pick some mangoes. when Maiku used Danda and beaten up informants' son due to which his right hand was fractured and he stated shouting. When the informant and her husband reached the place of incident and opposed Maiku for bearing their 9 year old son then Maiku and Nanku abused the informant and used caste related bad words and threatened him for life. Both the appellant entered into the house of the informant and beaten them using their hand and feet and used cast related words. After investigation charge sheet was filed and summons were issued. It is further submitted that during pendency of the case both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and do not want to proceed with the matter and also entered into a compromise on 11.4.2025. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that this Court by means of order dated 21.3.2025 passed in criminal appeal No.904 of 2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the compromise dated 11.4.2025. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the trial court and the trial court has verified the compromise and a report dated 11.4.2025 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 11.4.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants as well as opposite party no.s 2 and 3have compromised the dispute and as such opposite party no.s 2 and 3 do not want to press the present case against the appellants. 6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.s 2 and 3 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. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably. 9. 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 appellants 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. 10. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the appellants and the private respondent and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served will be served by allowing the appellants to be prosecuted in the said trial, therefore the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed, accordingly this appeal is allowed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 29.5.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench