HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36943 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pushkar Mehrotra , learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed by applicants for quashing the charge sheet dated 2.2.2023 submitted by Investigating Officer against applicant nos.1 and 2 under Sections 498A, 323 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and charge sheet dated 22.2.2023 filed against applicant no.3 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Case Crime No.752 of 2021, Police Station Phase Second, District Gautam Budh Nagar and entire proceedings of Case No.13732 of 2023 (State Vs. Vishnu Kumar and others) pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II, Gautam Budh Nagar in relation to Case Crime No.752 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Phase Second, District Gautam Budh Nagar as well as impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 24.3.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II, Gautam Budh Nagar in the above mentioned case on the basis of the Compromise Deed/Settlement dated 28.1.2025 filed by the parties in Divorce Petition No.336 of 2025 under Section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 28.1.2025 and the divorce Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Fahim Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pushkar Mehrotra, Supragya Ram Mishra Vishnu Kumar Garg And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) decree by mutual consent has been by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad by order dated 7.8.2025, copy of which has been filed at page 135 of the paper book and in view of compromise and divorce decree, 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 be quashed. 5. 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. 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 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 NA528 No. 36943 of 2025 2 between the parties in view of the compromise dated 28.1.2025 and divorce decree order dated 7.8.2025, 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 under Section 528 BNSS is, accordingly, allowed. September 24, 2025 D. Tamang NA528 No. 36943 of 2025 3 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad