Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87475 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10119 of 2024 Applicant :- Raju Alias Rajendra Alias Rajendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1.Heard learned counsel for applicant, Sri Neeraj Pal, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for State. 3. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 21.01.2021 as well as cognizance order dated 11.02.2021 and NBW dated 14.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Fatehpur in S.T. no. 125/21 filed in Case Crime no. 516/20 charged under sections 294, 506, 354(ka), 504 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, registered at PS- Bindaki, District Fatehpur. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that in compliance of earlier order dated 16.04.2024, verification report has already been received and the same is appended along with the order sheet. The parties had entered into compromise on dated 01.03.2024 and the same has also been verified by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Fatehpur vide order dated 29.04.2024 which is annexed as 'Flag A' to the order sheet. 5. Sri Neeraj Pal, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicant. 6. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties and it has been submitted that there would be no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise. 7.A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble 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. 8. 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. 9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of S.T. no. 125/21 in Case Crime no. 516/20 charged under sections 294, 506, 354(ka), 504 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, registered at PS- Bindaki, District Fatehpur as well as impugned charge sheet dated 21.01.2021 as well as cognizance order dated 11.02.2021, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicant herein. 10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. 11. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad