Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75949 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15260 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahrunishan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shikhar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties 2. The present application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 25.06.2013, cognizance/summoning order dated 06.07.2013 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.1398 of 2013 (State Vs. Smt. Mahrunishan), arising out of Case Crime No. 42/266 of 2011, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Saharanpur as well as to stay the further proceedings of abovementioned case. 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Saharanpur on dated 15.10.2024, which has been appended as Annexure no. 5 at page nos. 35 to 42 of the application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite party 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. 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, impugned charge-sheet dated 25.06.2013, cognizance/summoning order dated 06.07.2013 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.1398 of 2013 (State Vs. Smt. Mahrunishan), arising out of Case Crime No. 42/266 of 2011, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District- Saharanpur, 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, opposite party 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 :- 9.5.2025 #Vik/- Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad