HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28915 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 26.04.2011, cognizance/summoning order dated 27.07.2011 and the entire proceedings of Case No.1486 of 2024 (State vs. Tej Narayan) arising out of Case Crime No.212 of 2011, under sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Meerganj, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Bareilly. 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 Judicial Magistrate-1, Bareilly on dated 11.08.2026, which has been appended with ordersheet to this application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by both the parties/learned counsel for applicant. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava, Jitendra Singh, Rakesh Kumar Gangwar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Tej Narayan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 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 dated 26.04.2011, cognizance/summoning order dated 27.07.2011 and the entire proceedings of Case No.1486 of 2024 (State vs. Tej Narayan) arising out of Case Crime No.212 of 2011, under sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Meerganj, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1, 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, informant/opposite party no.2 feels that he/she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he/she may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application. September 28, 2026 Ashish/- NA528 No. 28915 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad