Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113464 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16659 of 2018 Applicant :- Chandrapal And 11 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Tripathi I Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Ashok Kumar Chaubey,G.A.,Pankaj Kumar With Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42713 of 2018 Applicant :- Prem Giri And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Ashok Kumar Chaubey,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Tripathi I Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 16659 of 2018 has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet dated 21.01.2018 and cognizance order dated 02.04.2018 in Case No. 07 of 2018 (State vs. Chandrapal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 450 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Simbhawali, District Hapur and; 3. Further, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 42713 of 2018 has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2018 (State vs. Prem Giri and others), pending in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Hapur, District Hapur as well as Charge sheet dated 10.03.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 33 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)R S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Simbhaoli, District Hapur and quash the cognizance order dated 29.03.2018 by which learned Judge, summoned the applicants for facing trial in the aforesaid section. 4. As both the aforesaid applications are connected, hence the same are heard together and decided by this common orders. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 17.04.2023 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 12.08.2024 as well as 08.08.2024, therefore, the present case be finally decided. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicants. He further contended that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the applicants and the same may be quashed. 7. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement which is duly verified by the court concerned. It is further submitted that he would have no objection in case criminal proceedings are put to an end. He further submits that in view of settlement there is virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal proceedings. 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; and there are no such over bearing circumstances for which the applicants 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 have 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 in view of the compromise dated 12.08.2024 and 08.08.2024, 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. Both the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Manoj Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad