Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44884 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 868 of 2025 Applicant :- Anuj Kumar @ Anuj Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Sri Geetanjali Yadav, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2/complainant by filing his vakalatnama alongwith counter-affidavit, which are taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Nagarjun Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate and Shri Dhirendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Geeanjali Yadav, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2. 3. By means of the instant application, the applicants have sought quashing of the the Chargesheet No. 144/2024 dated 12.10.2024 in Criminal Case No. 408 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 154 of 2024 under Sections 64(1), 333, 15(2), B.N.S. 2023, P.S. Bighapur, District Unnao, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Unnao, as also the entire proceedings of the said case. 4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the Opposite Party No. 2 on 07.08.2024, alleging that the Applicant No. 1 has been physically exploiting her for the last nine years under the allurement of marrying her. She also alleged that the applicant has prepared her objectionable videos and, thereafter, he has declined to marry her. 5. In her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the opposite party No. 2 has reiterated the FIR version. 6. The medico-legal examination report of the Opposite Party No. 2 did not reveal anything significant, which may support the allegations. 7. Meanwhile, the parties have entered into an agreement on 23.07.2025 wherein it is stated that the Opposite Party No. 2 has attained the age of 30 years, and she has not been married till date. A proposal for her marriage with the Applicant No. 1 was under consideration, but it could not materialize. Upon being misled by some persons, the Opposite Party No. 2 had lodged the FIR and given statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, but with the intervention of some respectable persons of the village, the parties have resolved their disputes, and the Opposite Party No. 2 does not want any proceeding to continue against the applicants. The Opposite Party No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit accepting the aforesaid facts and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. 8. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 also prayed for quashing of the proceedings. 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 10. 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 proceedings in pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. 11. 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 petition is allowed and proceedings of the Chargesheet No. 144/2024 dated 12.10.2024 in Criminal Case No. 408 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 154 of 2024 under Sections 64(1), 333, 15(2), B.N.S. 2023, P.S. Bighapur, District Unnao, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate- III, Unnao, as also the entire proceedings of the said case, are hereby quashed. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 1.8.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench