HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17354 of 2016 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Learned counsel for the complainant/informant, Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on the record. 2. Challenge in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the entire proceedings of Case No. 384 of 2016 (State vs. Arvind Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 42 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC, and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Farrukhabad, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. 3. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that by means of the earlier order dated 6.8.2025, the Court observed that dispute between the parties had amicably been settled and a compromise had also been executed on 27.3.2025 between the parties. In view of the above-mentioned settlement, an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was also filed and it had been allowed in terms of the compromise. The Court had directed that the compromise be verified and a report be submitted to this Court within a period of two weeks. 4. Today, when the matter is being taken up, there is an office report dated 18.9.2025 which states that no report has not been received from the concerned Court. However, Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in terms of the earlier order dated 6.8.2025, he has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therein the certified copy of the verification of the compromise made before Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M., F.T.C.-2 (Crime against Women), Farrukhabad. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on account of some disputes which are trivial in nature, present complaint has been instituted against the applicants by informant/complainant, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of society, applicants and informant/complainant have amicably and genuinely settled all their disputes and differences and now they do not have any Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajendra Kumar Dubey, Santosh Kumar Pandey Arvind Singh And 6 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) grievance against each other. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the said compromise and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, entire proceedings against the applicants be quashed. 7. Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Learned counsel for informant/complainant also corroborates the factum of the verification of the compromise between the parties. He has categorically stated that informant/complainant does not want to further contest the present proceedings against the applicants and has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed. 8. Learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 9. This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:- (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677]. (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v). Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466. Wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case. 11. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 384 of 2016 (State vs. Arvind Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 42 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC, and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Farrukhabad, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, are hereby quashed. A482 No. 17354 of 2016 2 12. The instant application is, accordingly, allowed. October 8, 2025 Sachin A482 No. 17354 of 2016 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad