Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39458 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5578 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Najjo @ Urmila And 3 Others Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- 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 applicants, Sri Satyendra Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Mohd. Vakar Khan, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on 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./Section 528 BNSS, the applicants have sought quashing of impugned charge sheet dated 18.11.2021, summoning order dated 10.10.2022 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7202 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.454 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, 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. Compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the application. The parties have confirmed the terms of compromise.The parties have agreed to reside together after resolving their disputes. 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. 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 charge sheet dated 18.11.2021, summoning order dated 10.10.2022 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7202 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.454 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow are quashed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench