Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44887 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6277 of 2025 Applicant :- Yogendra Pratap And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Hansraj Verma, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, Advocate, who has filed his vakaklatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2, which is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed for quashing the Chargesheet No. 716 of 2023 dated 11.11.2023 and summoning order dated 10.06.2024 in Case, State v. Yogendra Pratap and ors., Crime No. 668 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Unnao, pending in the court of Addl. Civil Judge, J.D. (F.T.C.), Crime Against Women, Unnao, and the entire proceedings of the said case. 3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of a First Information Report lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 19.08.2023, stating that she had got married to the applicant No. 1 on 19.01.2017. All the accused persons used to harass her for demanding dowry, and she was turned out of her matrimonial home. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet dated 11.11.2023 against all the accused persons, and the trial court has taken cognizance of the offences. The parties have entered into a settlement on 15.05.2025, wherein it is stated that the First Information Report was lodged because of matrimonial disputes between the parties, but thereafter, the marriage between the opposite party No. 2 and applicant No. 1 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The opposite party No. 2 stated that she no longer wants the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicants. 4. Compromise entered into between the parties has been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the petition. The parties have confirmed the terms of the compromise. Compromise has been verified between the parties by Addl. Civil Judge, J.D. (F.T.C.), Crime Against Women, Unnao, vide order dated 30.06.2025 in compliance of the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 No. 5183 of 2025. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. 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. 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 petition is allowed and proceedings of Chargesheet No. 716 of 2023 dated 11.11.2023 and summoning order dated 10.06.2024 in Case, State v. Yogendra Pratap and ors., Crime No. 668 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Unnao, pending in the court of Addl. Civil Judge, J.D. (F.T.C.), Crime Against Women, Unnao, and 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