Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41998 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5795 of 2025 Applicant :- Sidharth Singh @ Deepak Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravindra Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Hansraj Verma, the learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Rama Shankar Pandey, Advocate who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 as well as the short counter affidavit, are taken on record. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicants have sought quashing of the chargesheet dated 30.11.2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Faizabad/Ayodhya as well as summoning order dated 12.04.2018 along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 953 of 2020, which is pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Faizabad/Ayodhya. 3. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of the F.I.R lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 14.04.2017 against the applicants, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law ans sister-in-law, alleging harassment for demanding dowry 4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted a chargesheet against all the accused persons on 30.11.2017 and the trial court has taken cognizance of the offence. 5. During pendency of the trial, the parties have entered into a settlement dated 10.07.2025 wherein it is stated that the opposite party no. 2 is residing happily in her matrimonial home since long and she does not want any proceedings to continue against the accused persons. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed a short counter affidavit accepting the compromise and supported the prayer made by the applicants for quashing of the proceedings on the ground of compromise. 7. 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 criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. 8. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present petition is allowed and chargesheet dated 30.11.2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Faizabad/Ayodhya as well as summoning order dated 12.04.2018 along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 953 of 2020 are hereby quashed. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench