HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11367 of 2025 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Case called out. None appears on behalf respondent no.2. 2. Supplementary affidavit explaining criminal history of the appellant filed by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T. Act by the appellants challenging the chargesheet dated 09.04.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 06.06.2025 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2025 (State v. Satish Parihar), arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2025, under Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 331(4) BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Konch, District Jalaun. 5. The only prayer is for quashing the chargesheet and summoning order. It is contended that as the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled the matter amicably, therefore, proceedings with the case is nothing but futile. 6. This Court by its order dated 03.04.2026 directed the court concerned to verify the compromise. In compliance of the order dated 03.04.2026, copy of the verified compromise dated 18.05.2026 has been transmitted to this Court. 7. As per verified compromise deed, opposite party no.2, Smt. Varsha Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Gautam Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arjun Kumar, G.A. Satish Parihar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Jatav has no objection in case summoning order is set aside and charghesheet is quashed in the light of the compromise/settlement between the parties. . 8. It is admitted that essentially the dispute is private in nature further that in case proceeding is quashed, the interest of society is not likely to be affected. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409. 10. Learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue. Leaned A.G.A. has also informed that criminal history of the appellant has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. 11. As per report of Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. Act, Jalaun at Urai dated 31.08.2026 no any compensation amount was received by opposite party no.2 in this case. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the entire proceedings of the entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2025 (State v. Satish Parihar), arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2025, under Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 331(4) BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Konch, District Jalaun are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise. CRLA No. 11367 of 2025 2 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. 14. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the instant order to the court concerned through District and Sessions Judge, Jalaun by e-mail/FAX. September 9, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 11367 of 2025 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad