HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32955 of 2016 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there was a matrimonial dispute between the applicants and the respondent no.2 Smt. Nidhi Sharma but a settlement has been reached between the parties on 13.12.2016, in which they have agreed to settle their disputes amicably. A certified copy of which has been filed on record. 2. It was further submitted that in pursuance of that compromise, the parties have settled their dispute, as such, proceedings of the instant Criminal Case be also quashed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the documents submitted on record. 4. From the documents submitted, it is apparent that on 13.12.2016, a compromise has been reached between the complainant Nidhi Sharma and the accused Pankaj Sharma, whereby an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- was given by the accused to his estranged wife. It is further apparent that in pursuance of that compromise, Case No.333 of 2015 (Smt. Nidhi Sharma vs. Pankaj Sharma and others), under Section 406 I.P.C. has also been compromised, vide order dated dated 26.09.2016 passed by the A.C.J.M., Court No.6, Aligarh under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. 5. It is further apparent that by order dated 10.09.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, the compromise was verified between the parties, according to which the wife accepted the exparte Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pankaj Sharma Husband And 6 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) decree of divorce dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura granted in favour of the husband Pankaj Sharma in Marriage Petition No.749 of 2013 (Pankaj Sharma vs. Smt. Nidhi Sharma). 6. From the above facts, it is evident that a compromise has been reached between the parties regarding the matrimonial disputes existing between them, as such, it will be futile to keep the proceedings of instant case pending, which is also a matrimonial dispute, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act instituted on the complaint of the estranged wife against husband and his relatives. 7. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings of Complaint Case No.8 of 2014 (Smt. Nidhi Sharma vs. Pankaj Sharma and others), under Sections 498- A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Delhi Gate, District Aligarh and all incidental proceedings thereto, are hereby quashed. May 12, 2026 Jitendra A482 No. 32955 of 2016 2 (Sandeep Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad