Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114261 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13513 of 2023 Applicant :- Sunil Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Babhru Vahan Singh,R S Dubey,Savita Dubey,Surya Prakash Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Sri Krishna Kumar, opposite party no. 2 is present, in person, and identified by his counsel, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, advocate. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present application has been filed by applicant for quashing the entire proceedings, including cognizance order dated 25.04.2022, charge sheet dated 21.02.2022 of Case Crime No. 295 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Munderwa, District Basti, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Basti. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the compromise has been entered into between the parties for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-, which is to be paid by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2. 5. The opposite party no. 2- Sri Krishna Kumar has also admitted the aforesaid fact that the compromise has been entered into the parties and he would have no objection, if the criminal proceedings against applicant are quashed subject to the payment of Rs. 1,10,000/-. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the demand draft bearing no. 074776 of Rs. 1,10,000/- is being handed over to the opposite party no. 2 today in Court through his counsel. 7. A photo copy of the aforesaid demand draft along with receiving of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record. 8. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings in the present case had essentially been an outcome of a civil nature dispute in the family; and there are no such over bearing circumstances for which the applicant ought to be prosecuted even after the parties has entered into a settlement. Needless to observe that with the present stand of the parties in terms of their settlement, there is practically no chance of recording conviction, even if the case under the F.I.R. in question is put to trial. In other words, entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility. On the contrary, looking to the nature of dispute and the fact that the disputants ave compromised and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings in question are quashed. 9. It would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end. 10. In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter has been mutually settled between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 11. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. 12. The present application under Section 528 BNSS is, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 SK Srivastava Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad