Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10634 Court No. - 18 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1493 of 2025 Applicant :- Suraj Dixit And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Chandra Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-Heard Mr. Ramendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party No.1, Mr. Praveen Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record. 2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no. 60 of 2021, summoning order dated 02.09.2021 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4679 of 2021 (State vs. Suraj Dixit and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 67 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ataria, District Sitapur pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Second, Sitapur on the basis of compromise between the parties concerned. 3-Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this case as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants are that the applicants are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. The marriage of applicant no. 1 with the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 14.09.2019 but on account of acrimonious relation, their marriage was not successful and as a result thereof, opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report on 10.03.2021 making allegation of her harassment and torture in her matrimonial home, in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet dated 20.03.2021 has been submitted against them, on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 02.09.2021. Thereafter parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7261, in which this Court vide its order dated 21.01.2025 permitted the parties concerned to appear before the trial court with a direction that the concerned trial court shall conclude the process of verification of the compromise within two weeks. 4-Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 21.01.2025, the parties concerned have appeared before the trial court and the compromise has been verified by the concerned Magistrate and a report/order dated 31.01.2025 has been passed. 5-On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, therefore, aforesaid criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court. 6-Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has also submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, opposite party no. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicants and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants. 7-After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find that after settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicants to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned wants to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in a matrimonial dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement, because in such circumstances the proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and, the prospect of conviction gets lost. 8-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 1 SCC (Cri) 848 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296, this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the ends of justice. In the case in hand interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties are brought to an end. 9-In view of the above, impugned charge sheet dated 20.03.2021 and entire proceedings of aforesaid Criminal Case No. 4679 of 2021 (State vs. Suraj Dixit and Others) against the applicants are hereby quashed. 10-In the conspectus of the aforesaid, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench