Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39486 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4449 of 2025 Applicant :- Satyam @ Ajay @ Satyam Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Dhuriya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Nishad Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashok Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Anil Kumar Nishad, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record. Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the impugned cognizance order dated 07.03.2022, the charge-sheet dated 04.03.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.352 of 2021 arising out of the Case Crime No.946 of 2021, under Sections 376 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and 5j(ii) of POCSO Act, Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of an FIR on 06.12.2021 stating that the applicant had physically exploited the informant's daughter. 4. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 04.03.2022 and the trial Court took cognizance of the offence. 5. The applicant has sought quashing of the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case on the ground that he has married the daughter of the complainant and they have been blessed with a son out of their wedlock. A compromise dated 16.05.2025 entered into between the parties has been annexed with the application wherein the aforesaid facts have been stated and it has been stated that both the parties did not want any proceedings to continue any further. 3. The compromise has been verified by means of an order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Spl. Judge POCSO Act, Court NO.3, Lucknow. 4. Opposite party No.2 does not have any objection, if the impugned proceedings are quashed against the applicants. 5. Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. 6. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present petition is allowed and the impugned cognizance order dated 07.03.2022, the charge-sheet dated 04.03.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.352 of 2021 arising out of the Case Crime No.946 of 2021, under Sections 376 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and 5j(ii) of POCSO Act, Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow are hereby quashed. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 10.7.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench