HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6228 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T. Act by the appellants challenging the chargesheet No.68 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge/S.C.-S.T. Act, District Amroha as well as the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 291 of 2025 (State vs. Ayan and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2025, under Sections 87, 70(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rajabpur, District Amroha. 3. The only prayer is for quashing the chargesheet and summoning order. It is contended that as the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled the matter amicably, therefore, proceedings with the case is nothing but futile. 4. This Court by its order dated 11.08.2026 directed the court concerned to verify the compromise. In compliance of the order dated 11.08.2026, copy of the verified compromise dated 19.08.2026 has been transmitted to this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that he has no objection in case summoning order is set aside and charghesheet is quashed in the light of the compromise/settlement between the parties. He further submits that the compensation provided to the opposite party no.2 has already been returned to the State. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Devendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sanjay Kumar Asthana, G.A. Sonu Ali And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 6. It is admitted and contended by the opposite party no.2 that essentially the dispute is private in nature further that in case proceeding is quashed, the interest of society is not likely to be affected. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409. 8. Learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue. 9. As per report of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Sessions Judge/S.C.- S.T. Act, District Amroha, victim/opposite party no.2 has not received any amount from the State. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 291 of 2025 (State vs. Ayan and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2025, under Sections 87, 70(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rajabpur, District Amroha are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. 12. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the instant order to the court concerned through District and Sessions Judge,Amroha by e- mail/FAX. September 11, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 6228 of 2026 2 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad