HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17497 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Pavanesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case no. 4098 of 2019 (State vs. Sahin and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 994 of 2018 under sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B of IPC, PS- Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar as well as charge sheet dated 7.9.2018 along with cognizance order dated 22.6.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar on the basis of compromise settled between the parties. 3. In compliance of earlier order dated 30.5.2025 passed by this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 3, Bulandshahar and the same is appended to order sheet wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified on dated 10.7.2025 in presence of both the parties. 4. Sri Pavanesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and 3 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pavanesh Kumar Yadav, G.A. Jahid And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise. 6. 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 Case no. 4098 of 2019 (State vs. Sahin and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 994 of 2018 under sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B of IPC, PS- Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants namely Jahid, Abid and Smt. Sahin. 9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. 10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. 11. If at all, opposite party no. 2 and 3 feels that they have been duped or betrayed, then in that event, they may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application. October 13, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 17497 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad