HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17444 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rohit Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ambarish Chatterji, 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 16.12.2010 and cognizance order dated 22.02.2011 passed by ACMM- II, Kanpur Nagar and further proceedings of Case Crime no. 13 of 2010 and Criminal Case no. 1152A of 2010 (State vs. Apeel) under sections 363, 366 IPC, PS- Panki, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. In compliance of earlier order dated 28.8.2025 passed by this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned Additional Civil Judge (SD), Court no. 1, Kanpur Nagar and the same is appended to order sheet wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified on dated 15.9.2025 in presence of both the parties. 4. Sri Ambarish Chatterji, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicant. 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) : Rohit Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ambarish Chatterji, G.A. Apeel Alias Apeel Yadav .....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 no. 1152A of 2010 (State vs. Apeel) arising out of Case Crime no. 13 of 2010 under sections 363, 366 IPC, PS- Panki, District Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicant herein. 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 17, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 17444 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad