Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40131 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 535 of 2025 Applicant :- Durgesh Chandra Pathak (Subhash Pathak As Mentioned In Fir) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Mishra,Mohd. Imran Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Angad Kumar Vishwakarma, learned A.G.A. for the State, as well as Sri Mohd. Vakar Khan, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 01.02.2025 filed in Case Crime No.12 of 2025, under Sections 69, 351(3) and 352 BNSS lodged at Police Station Maharajganj, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, quashing of the summoning order as well as quashing of the entire Criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.123 of 2025 (State Vs. Durgesh Pathak), pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1, Ayodhya on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise/settlement. 3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 15.01.2025 stating that the applicant physically exploited her under allurement of marrying her and thereafter he declined to marry her. The opposite party no. 2 had supported the FIR allegations by her statements. 4. After investigation, the investigating officer had submitted a charge-sheet on 01.02.2025 and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences. 5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement dated 21.05.2025 wherein it is stated that there was a loving relationship between the applicant and the opposite party no.2, but the family members of both of them did not agree for their marriage and, therefore, they could not get married. The opposite party no.2 had lodged the FIR due to anger for this reason. Now, the opposite party no. 2 has got married on 06.02.2025 and pendency of the criminal case is creating disturbances in her matrimonial life. 6. The opposite party no. 2 has filed a short counter affidavit admitting the compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has advanced his submissions in support of quashing of the proceedings. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, 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. 8. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and the charge sheet dated 01.02.2025 filed in Case Crime No.12 of 2025, under Sections 69, 351(3) and 352 BNSS lodged at Police Station Maharajganj, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, the impugned summoning order as well as the entire Criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.123 of 2025 (State Vs. Durgesh Pathak), pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1, Ayodhya are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 MVS/- Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench