Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13967 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14269 of 2020 Applicant :- Jumrati And 17 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saleem Ahmad Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/informant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 02.01.2019 and cognizance/summoning order dated 19.01.2019, of Case No. 106 of 2019 (State Vs. Jumrati & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 447 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 307 IPC, P.S. Pipraich, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the alleged dispute between the parties has taken place due to misconception and that now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the informant and the injured do not want to pursue the impugned proceedings. It was submitted that both the parties are residents of same village. In alleged incident no one has sustained any serious injury and that alleged incident took place at the spur of moment. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court concerned, has already been verified by the court concerned, copy of which is on record. It was stated that in view of these facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 /informant has concurred with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and the informant and the injured do want to proceed with the case pending before the trial court and the impugned proceedings may be quashed, as no useful purpose would be served by exhausting remedy of trial. 5. Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter. 6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. It is well settled that in appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise. In the instant case, the dispute between the parties appears to be private in nature and it would not have any serious impact on society if parties compromise the matter. Though, normally criminal proceedings under Section 307 IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise but in the instant matter it appears that informant/injured have not sustained any serious injury. The incident took place between the followers of two different religious groups and compromise between them would convey a good message for maintaining harmony in said two religious groups. In view of these facts and circumstances, it would not be just and proper to decline the quashing of proceedings merely because the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 307 IPC. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. As stated earlier both the parties are residents of same town and that none of the party has sustained any serious injury and the informant/injured do not want to proceed with the impugned case against the applicants. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Considering facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed. 8. In view of the aforesaid, entire impugned proceedings, including charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order, of the aforesaid criminal case against applicants, namely, Jumrati, Sams Alam, Koeel, Sabbir, Sultan, Shan Muhammad, Sams Alam, Izmamul Haq, Tavrej Alam, Muhammad Jakki, Sanaullah @ Bhuwar, Raheem & Abdul Raheem, Jhinak @ Kamaruddin Ali, Kamar Alam, Mustkeem, Chhotey Alam @ Ejajuddin, Isteyak & Hasmat are hereby quashed. 9. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad