HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16518 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1.Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Pramod Singh Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 3. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 15.12.2024 as well as summoning/cognizance order dated 25.3.2025 and entire criminal proceedings of Case no. 1632 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Sohan Devi) arising out of Case Crime no. 335 of 2024 under sections 110, 115(2), 352 BNS, PS- Mau, District Chitrkoot. 4. In compliance of earlier order dated 23.5.2025 passed by co- ordinate Bench of this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Chitrakoot and the same has been preferred today by learned counsel for applicant by way of supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified on dated 5.8.2025 in presence of both the parties. 5. Sri Pramod Singh Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pramod Singh Yadav, G.A. Sohan Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of Case no. 1632 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Sohan Devi) arising out of Case Crime no. 335 of 2024 under sections 110, 115(2), 352 BNS, PS- Mau, District Chitrkoot, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicant herein. 10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. 11. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within three weeks from today. 12. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he/she have been NA528 No. 16518 of 2025 2 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. 16518 of 2025 3 (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