Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39519 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 710 of 2025 Applicant :- Jagannath And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Eshan Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Eshan Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyendra Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Shashank Srivastava, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Short 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./Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has sought for quashing of impugned cognizance order dated 28.04.2025 along with entire proceedings of Case No.42700 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.144 of 2024, under Sections 115(2)/352/351(2) B.N.S. 2023, Police Station Nigoha, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at a compromise. The compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure No.4 to the application. The parties have confirmed the terms of compromise. 4. Opposite party No.2 does not have any objection, if the impugned proceedings are quashed against the applicants. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and 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 criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. 7. 7. 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 application is allowed and impugned cognizance order dated 28.04.2025 along with entire proceedings of Case No.42700 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.144 of 2024, under Sections 115(2)/352/351(2) B.N.S. 2023, Police Station Nigoha, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench