Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41414 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5784 of 2025 Applicant :- Jamal Ahmad @ Mohd. Jamal @ Pappu @ Mohd. Jmal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suhail Kashif,Mohd.Umeed Irshad Qadri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Suhail Kashif, the learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the 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 applicants have sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 13.04.1998, cognizance/summoning order dated 07.07.1998 along with entire proceedings of Case No.2594 of 1994 (New No.88 of 2025), arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 1998, under Section 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki, pending in the court of learned Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Barabanki on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement. 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-3 to the application. As per the compromise the parties have agreed to severe their relationship with each other and the opposite party no.2 has agreed for closure of criminal proceedings instituted by her against the applicant. 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. 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 charge sheet dated 13.04.1998, cognizance/summoning order dated 07.07.1998 along with entire proceedings of Case No.2594 of 1994 (New No.88 of 2025), arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 1998, under Section 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki, pending in the court of learned Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Barabanki are quashed. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench