Rajiv Gupta, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, Shri Harish Kumar Tripathi and learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant, Pappu with prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 6.11.2019 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 in S.T. No 1114 of 2017 arising out of case crime no. 815 of 2016, State Vs. Narendra Saini, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad under sections 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the course of proceeding both the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and differences and the O.P. No.2 does not want to further pursue the criminal proceeding against the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for appellant has next submitted that on account of monetary dispute the said criminal case was instituted against the appellant which now has been settled and no dispute remains between them and in order to maintain cordial and harmonious relations between them, entire criminal proceedings be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 filed an affidavit and in paragraph nos. 3 of the affidavit, it has been categorically stated that parties have already settled their dispute and the amount has already been paid to O.P. No.2. In paragraph no. 5 of the said affidavit, it has been further stated that a compromise deed has been made between the parties and the said compromise has been made out of his own free will and consent and without any pressure or coercion and O.P. No.2 has no objection if the entire criminal proceedings be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2011, Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 25.10.2021, reported in 2021 AIR(SC) 5228.

7. This Court is not unmindful of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, [LQ/SC/2014/327] wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for both the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

9. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of S.T. No 1114 of 2017 arising out of case crime no. 815 of 2016, State Vs. Narendra Saini, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad under sections 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act., are hereby quashed.

10. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is accordingly allowed.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.