Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85032 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16108 of 2024 Applicant :- Surya Prakash Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30997 of 2018 Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Gupta @ Ravi Gupta And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyan Prakash Mishra,Harshit Gupta,Ramanand Gupta Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Gyan Prakash Mishra and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. These applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 30130 of 2018, State of U.P. Vs. Surya Prakash and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 105 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. ans Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Feelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 30997 of 2018 the applicant no. 4- Gopi Kishan Gupta has died during the pendency of the case. Therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 30997 of 2018 in respect of applicant no. 4- Gopi Kishan Gupta. 4. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 30997 of 2018 is dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of applicant no. 4- Gopi Kishan Gupta. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 05.01.2024 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 02.09.2024, therefore, the present case be finally decided. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicants. He further contended that opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the applicants and the same may be quashed. 7. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement which is duly verified by the court concerned. 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. 8. 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 applicants 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 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 the compromise dated 05.01.2024, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 11. 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. 12. These applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 SK Srivastava Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad