. . HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24420 of 2025 . Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This application under section 528 BNSS has been preferred to quash the impugned charge-sheet no. 27 of 2024 dated 12.02.2024, summoning/cognizance order dated 02.08.2024 and the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 1135 of 2024 (State vs. Dashrath Pal) arising out of Case Crime No. 26 of 2024, under Sections 354, 452 IPC and Section 9(M)/10 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Baruasagar, District-Jhansi pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jhansi as well as to stay the further proceedings of abovementioned case. 3. In reference to the verification as directed by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2025, it is apprised by learned counsel for the applicant that compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, has been verified in presence of both the parties by the concerned court on dated 25.07.2025 and the same is on record, this fact has also been ascertained 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 party and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anuj Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Dashrath Pal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) has been 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. 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 proceedings 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 no. 27 of 2024 dated 12.02.2024, summoning/cognizance order dated 02.08.2024 and the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 1135 of 2024 (State vs. Dashrath Pal) arising out of Case Crime No. 26 of 2024, under Sections 354, 452 IPC and Section 9(M)/10 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Baruasagar, District-Jhansi pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jhansi, are hereby set-aside. 8. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed. 9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the records kept on record preferred on behalf of the applicant. 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. NA528 No. 24420 of 2025 2 10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. September 10, 2025 #Vik/- NA528 No. 24420 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad