Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87507 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10080 of 2025 Applicant :- Saddam Hussain And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmaveer Singh,Saroj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Case No.10273 of 2020 (State Vs. Pitambar Tripathi and others), arising out of Case Crime No.440 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, IPC and Section 66 of IT Act, P.S. Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau along with entire proceedings of the said in respect of applicants herein. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned court concerned on dated 24.04.2025 which has been appended with this petition, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise. 5. A three-Judge Bench of the 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. 6. 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. 7. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, order dated 07.03.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Case No.10273 of 2020 (State Vs. Pitambar Tripathi and others), arising out of Case Crime No.440 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, IPC and Section 66 of IT Act, P.S. Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau along with entire proceedings of the said in respect of applicants herein, are hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. 9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all, respondent no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application. 10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad