HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43810 of 2023 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vimal Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No.1693 of 2018 (State Vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Rajendra) under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and 67 I.Τ. Act and section 4/6 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, Police Station-Chandausi, District-Sambhal arising out of case crime No.252 of 2017 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal situated at Chandausi including cognizance and summoning order dated 6.1.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties, therefore, the present case be finally decided. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicant. He further contended that in view of paras-3 to 6 of the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2-wife, he does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the applicant and the same may be quashed. Paras-3 to 6 of the short counter affidavit are quoted herein below: "3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the deponent does not want to proceed any criminal proceedings against the applicant including the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ambikesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satyendra Kumar Dwivedi, Vimal Srivastava Rajesh Kumar Alias Rajendra Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) present case i.e. Case No.1693 of 2018 (State vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajendra) under Sections 504, 506 IPC, 67 I.Τ. Act and section 4/6 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, Police Station- Chandausi, District-Sambhal arising out of case crime No.252 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal as the entire dispute has already been settled between the parties amicably and they have entered into compromise and the deponent has also been received permanent alimony on the basis of compromise. 4. That now the opposite party no.2/deponent has no grievance against the applicant in any manner and the entire amount on the basis of compromise has also been received by the deponent from the applicant. 5. That since the deponent has now no concern with the applicant and has settled the entire dispute amicably, hence she does not wants to proceed with any criminal proceedings against the applicant. 6. That in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, hence by getting the aforesaid Case No.1693 of 2018 (State vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajendra) under Sections 504, 506 IPC, 67 I.Τ. Act and section 4/6 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, Police Station- Chandausi, District-Sambhal arising out of case crime No.252 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal will not serve any purpose and the deponent has no objection in case the aforesaid criminal proceedings are quashed by this Hon'ble Court." 5. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement. It is further submitted that he would have no objection in case criminal proceedings are put to an end. He further submits that in view of settlement there is virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal proceedings. 6. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings in the present case had essentially been an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; and there are no such over bearing circumstances for which the applicant ought to be prosecuted even after the parties has entered into a settlement. Needless to observe that with the present stand of the parties in terms of their settlement, there is practically A482 No. 43810 of 2023 2 no chance of recording conviction, even if the case under the F.I.R. in question is put to trial. In other words, entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility. On the contrary, looking to the nature of dispute and the fact that the disputants have compromised and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings in question are quashed. 7. It would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end. 8. In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter has been mutually settled between the parties in view of paras-3 to 6 of the short counter affidavit, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 9. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. 10. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. September 16, 2025 S.Prakash A482 No. 43810 of 2023 3 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad