HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35788 of 2008 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Puneet Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and learned A.G.A. for State. 3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No.392/IX/06 (State Vs. Gajendra Singh Chauhan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.39 of 2005, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Surir, District Mathura. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is matrimonial case wherein parties have entered into compromise. The FIR has been registered for the offence under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act by the father of the opposite party no.3. Further contended that the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.3 are husband and wife and in compromise, they have buried their hatchet and residing together since 2006. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 has passed away. The compromise is at page no.35, which is in the shape of affidavit filed by the opposite party no.3 stating therein that due to some matrimonial dispute, she went to her parental home and her father in fit of anger, has lodged the FIR. He further discloses that she does not want to proceed with the case. Further submits that the matter is of the year 2005 and after moving application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., proceedings has been stayed since 2009. Hence, seeks indulgence of this Court. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate Gajendra Singh Chauhan And Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P.And Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel appears for the opposite party no.3 submits that her client being the wife does not want to proceed with the case. The opposite party no.2 has expired. He admits the factum of affidavit filed by the opposite party no.3 before the court, who herself was victim. Further submits that in the counter affidavit, the death certificate of the opposite party no.2 is annexed at page no.12 disclosing that the opposite party no.2 passed away on 18.02.2021. 5. This Court has considered that the matrimonial case is ended in compromise as the parties have buried their hatchet long back. 6. In the case of Jasmair Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2022) 9 SCC 73, the Supreme Court has observed that in matrimonial cases, if the parties have buried the hatchet and decided to give quietus to the proceedings, the exercise of section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 B.N.S.S.) for quashment of criminal proceedings, is eminent. 7. Thus, the charge sheet and the proceeding arose out of case crime number mentioned above are hereby quashed. Consequently, the proceedings of trial also quashed. 8. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed accordingly. September 8, 2025 Mini A482 No. 35788 of 2008 2 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad