Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141884 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18680 of 2025 Applicant :- Raja Alias Kuldeep And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,Krishna Dutt Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Girja Shanker Sen,G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and Sri Girja Shanker Sen, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA. 2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated 06.11.2024 and cognizance order dated 12.11.2024 along with chargesheet dated 08.02.2025 and cognizance order dated 18.02.2025 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.378 of 2024 (State Vs. Jatin and others), arising out of Case Crime No.291 of 2024, under Sections 318(2), 308(4), 308(5), 127(2), 336(3), 340(2) BNS and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Sirauli, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Bareilly on the basis of compromise dated 17.04.2025. 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 07.08.2025 which has been appended with this petition, 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, chargesheet dated 06.11.2024 and cognizance order dated 12.11.2024 along with chargesheet dated 08.02.2025 and cognizance order dated 18.02.2025 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.378 of 2024 (State Vs. Jatin and others), arising out of Case Crime No.291 of 2024, under Sections 318(2), 308(4), 308(5), 127(2), 336(3), 340(2) BNS and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Sirauli, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Bareilly, 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 :- 19.8.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad