HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25469 of 2018 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 9.2.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 21.4.2018 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.759 of 2018, State Vs. Bajid and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 342, 325 I.P.C. and under Section 135 Electricity Act, Police Station Kemri, District Rampur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that compromise has been entered into between the parties out of the Court, therefore the present case be finally decided. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed short counter affidavit in which in paragraph 8 it has been stated that compromise has been entered into between the parties. Paragraph 8 of the short counter affidavit is quoted hereunder:- "8. That it is humbly being submitted that the offence in question is private in nature as it does not involve societal ramifications, even though the first informant is a public servant. It is primarily a private dispute owing to mis-understanding between the parties and the public at large Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : A.K. Mishra, Atharva Dixit, Gajendra Singh, Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd Bajid Husain And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) has not been affected by the present case. The present case is not one where public money is involved or where there is heinous offence against a state. It is solely a dispute between two groups of persons which has been amicably settled by them and as such the proceedings ought to be quashed on the basis of such compromise as continuance of proceedings would bear no fruit and would be a waste of judicial time and energy. It is also pertinent to point out that offences involving moral turpitude and affecting the moral thread of the society have been excluded from the ambit of quashing on the basis of a compromise. However, it is humbly submitted that the object is not to prevent the quashing of proceedings which are essentially private in nature just on the ground that a public servant is involved. It is humbly submitted that a public servant is a human being first and then a public servant." 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the applicants and the same may be quashed. 5. 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. 6. 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 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. A482 No. 25469 of 2018 2 7. 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. 8. 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 paragraph 8 of the short counter affidavit, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 9. 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. 10. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. September 17, 2025 Bhaskar A482 No. 25469 of 2018 3 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad