Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42863 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6004 of 2025 Applicant :- Irfan @ Urfan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Hans Raj Verma, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Smt. Manoj Kumari, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.34/XII/2022 arising out of Case Crime No.333 of 2021 under Sections 376/354/354-C IPC at Police Station- Hardi, Bahraich as well as the summoning order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich. 3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No.2 against seven persons, including the applicant, alleging that she had got married to the applicant No.1 in the year 2009. The applicant No.2 is her father-in-law and applicant No.3 is her brother-in-law. She alleged harassment by all the family members and commission of rape by the applicant No.2 and molestation by the applicant No.3. 4. The Investigating Officer has submitted a closure report, however, the trial Court did not accept the same in toto and had summoned the applicants to face trial. 5. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement which has been annexed with the present petition. It is recorded in the compromise that the opposite party No.2 is residing with her husband-the applicant No.1, in her matrimonial home and she does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicants. 6. The opposite party No.2 has filed a short counter affidavit accepting the compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. 7. Although, the FIR made a mention of commission of rape, the allegation could not be established during investigation and there is no material to support this allegation. 8. In these circumstances, when the opposite party No.2 has admitted that she has resumed cohabitation with her husband- the applicant No.1 and she is residing happily and does not want any proceedings to continue, I am of the view that the continuance of the proceedings in the present case will not serve the ends of justice. 9. 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. 10. 10. 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 entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.34/XII/2022 arising out of Case Crime No.333 of 2021 under Sections 376/354/354-C IPC at Police Station- Hardi, Bahraich as well as the summoning order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich are quashed. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 25.7.2025/-Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench