HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11686 of 2024 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, is taken on record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial (P) No.49 of 2014 (State Vs. Arjun Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.089/2014, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act lodged at Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar and to quash the charge-sheet no.42/2014 dated 21.07.2014 filed in the aforesaid case crime number and summoning order dated 26.08.2014 passed in the aforesaid sessions trial on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise/settlement. 3. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at a compromise. The compromise entered into between the parties have been placed on record as Annexure-9 to the application. The parties have confirmed the terms of the compromise. The compromise has been verified between the parties by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar vide order dated 13.11.2024 in compliance of the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by this Court in an Application U/s 482 No.8433 of 2024. 4. This Court has also considered that the prosecutrix had performed Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vikas Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pankaj Kumar Singh Arjun Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) marriage somewhere else in 2014 and since last 11 years she is peacefully enjoying her marital life and, therefore, the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar and Others versus State of Maharashtra and Another in SLP (Crl.) No.7212 of 2025 wherein it has has held that if the alleged victim has settled her life by performing marriage since long back and is not interested to pursue the case, allowing further criminal proceeding would prolong the distress for all concern especially the complainant and the victim and the exercise of the trial would likelihood of no productive outcome. 5. 5. Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgement is referred as follows:- "7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More Importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome" 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 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 A482 No. 11686 of 2024 2 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. 8. 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 instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings Sessions Trial (P) No.49 of 2014 (State Vs. Arjun Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.089/2014, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act lodged at Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar, including the charge-sheet no.42/2014 dated 21.07.2014 and the summoning order dated 26.08.2014, are hereby quashed. 9. The compromise deed shall be part of this order. 10. Consign to record. August 27, 2025 MVS/- A482 No. 11686 of 2024 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench