JUDGMENT 1. The order dated 28.7.2017 notices the progress in the case in court till now. The order reads as under: - "1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing first information report bearing Case Crime No. 81 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 504, 377 and 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Para, District Lucknow. 2. Order dated 25th May, 2016 notices the gist of the issue raised by the petitioners. The order reads as under: - "1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 81 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 504, 377, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Para, District Lucknow. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner no.4 was married to respondent no.4. The whatsapp record appended with the petition as Annexure 4 indicates that offence has not been committed. It has been argued that in abuse of process of the law, Section 377 Indian Penal Code has been invoked without there being any physical/medical evidence of commission of offence. It is only a matrimonial dispute. 3. Issue notice to respondent no. 4 returnable on 28.7.2016. 4. List on 28.7.2016. 5. Respondent no.4 and petitioner no.4 shall remain present in court on the next date of listing. 6. In the meantime, investigating officer of the case is directed to conduct investigation in regard to the whatsapp messages, appended as Annexure 4 and file counter affidavit whether offence has been committed or not. Physical/medical evidence in regard to commission of offence under Section 377 Indian Penal Code be also collected and counter affidavit be filed. 7. The petitioners shall not be taken in custody till the next date of listing. The petitioners are directed to provide all the documents/evidence available with the petitioners to the investigating officer within five working days, by way of Registered AD post also." 3. Shri Mohd. Hidayat Ullah Ansari, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4. His power of attorney is taken on record. 4. The parties are present and have assured the Court that they will make an attempt to resolve their dispute. 5. Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency in Court, which is taken on record. 4. His power of attorney is taken on record. 4. The parties are present and have assured the Court that they will make an attempt to resolve their dispute. 5. Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency in Court, which is taken on record. In the affidavit, it has been stated that in the course of investigation no evidence has been found to indicate commission of offence under Section 377 Indian Penal Code. 6. List on 6th September, 2016. 7. Let name of Shri Mohd. Hidayat Ullah Ansari, Advocate be reflected in the cause list as counsel for the respondents. 8. Further proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. 9. The parties shall again appear." 2. The parties are present in court in deference to the above extracted order. 3. It does not appear that reconciliation is possible between petitioner no. 4 and respondent no. 4. 4. Be that as it may, counter affidavit on behalf of the investigating agency is available on record. In Para 13 and 14 of the Short counter affidavit it has been stated that no physical or medical evidence has been found to indicate commission of offence under Section 377 Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances the prosecution wants to drop proceedings under Section 377 Indian Penal Code. 5. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that rest of the offences entail a sentence of seven years. In case credible evidence is found advance notice would be given under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code in terms of judgement rendered in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 6. Considering the changed circumstances as depicted from the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the prosecution, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that let this petition be disposed of. 7. The petition is disposed of.