Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54319 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19452 of 2024 Applicant :- Swaraj And 41 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. In pursuance to earlier order dated 10.06.2024 passed by co- ordinate Bench of this Court, pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties and the same is available in the records. 3. The present application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 21.11.2010, cognizance/summoning order dated 09.01.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura as well as entire proceedings of Case No.151/IX/2012 (State Vs. Swaraj and others) under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 452 IPC and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act arising out of Case Crime No.984 of 2010, , P.S. Vrindavan, District- Mathura, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura on dated 28.09.2015, the said verification report has been appended as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite parties. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts as well as circumstances of the case, charge-sheet dated 21.11.2010, cognizance/summoning order dated 09.01.2012 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.151/IX/2012 (State Vs. Swaraj and others) under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 452 IPC and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act arising out of Case Crime No.984 of 2010, P.S. Vrindavan, District- Mathura, are hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. 10. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all, opposite party no.2 feels that she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, she may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application. 11. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad