HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16038 of 2024 Court No. - 77 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 no.321/2020 dated 24.06.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2020 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No.771 of 2020 (State Vs. Ranjeet Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.283 of 2020, under sections 452, 354(Gha), 323, 506 IPC and sections 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Chhibramau, District- Kannauj, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kannauj. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Kannauj on dated 23.04.2025, which has been appended along with records, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite parties. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar Pandey, G.A. Ranjeet Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 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, charge-sheet no.321/2020 dated 24.06.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2020 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No.771 of 2020 (State Vs. Ranjeet Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.283 of 2020, under sections 452, 354(Gha), 323, 506 IPC and sections 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Chhibramau, District- Kannauj, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kannauj, 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. September 19, 2025 Saif A482 No. 16038 of 2024 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad