HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29918 of 2024 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Deepak Kumar Verma, 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. 1424 of 2022 (State Vs. Ghanshyam @ Pramod and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 660 of 2020, Under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat as well as impugned charge sheet dated 07.06.2021 and impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-First, Kanpur Dehat. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the settlement agreement has already been entered between the parties before the Mediation Centre of this Court on 04.06.2025, 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 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akansha Verma, Deepak Kumar Verma, G.A. Ghanshyam @ Pramod And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) be quashed. 5. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement agreement before the Mediation Centre of this Court. 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 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 settled the dispute 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 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 the settlement agreement dated 04.06.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. A482 No. 29918 of 2024 2 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 15, 2025 S.Prakash A482 No. 29918 of 2024 3 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad