HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32802 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. On the request of learned counsel for applicant, this matter is being taken up out of turn considering the urgency. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.150 of 2026 (State vs. Manoj Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.133 of 2024, under section 406 IPC, P.S. Awagarh, District- Etah, pending before learned court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.), Jalesar, Etah, including charge-sheet dated 10.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 31.01.2026 on the basis of compromise dated 20.07.2026 entered between the parties. 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 Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.), Jalesar, Etah on dated 25.08.2026, which has been appended with the records of 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Santosh Kumar Rai Manoj Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 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. In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC 37], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed that if the offence is non- compoundable which is having no serious impact on society then there would be no harm and error if the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise entered into between the parties. 9. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.150 of 2026 (State vs. Manoj Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.133 of 2024, under section 406 IPC, P.S. Awagarh, District- Etah, pending before learned court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.), Jalesar, Etah, including charge-sheet dated 10.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 31.01.2026, are hereby quashed, in respect of applicant(s) herein. 10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. 11. 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 Saif NA528 No. 32802 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad