HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5272 of 2025 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.3187 of 2014(Ramdas Verma vs. Chandrabhan Verma and others) under Section 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge(J.D.), Court No.1/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi as well as summoning order dated 14.9.2016 passed therein. Pursuant to the order dated 7.5.2025, a communication dated 26.5.2025 has been received from the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge(J.D.), FTC(CAW), Jhansi stating that the parties have appeared before the concerned court along with the compromise deed dated 3.1.2025 and the same has been duly verified by the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge(J.D.), FTC(CAW), Jhansi on 26.5.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of personal discord between the applicants and the opposite party no.2. It is also argued that the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the Court concerned and, therefore, the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 admits the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the impugned Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Rathore, Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satish Kumar Yadav Chandra Bhan Verma And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) proceeding pending against the applicants is quashed. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench Judgment in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012)10 SCC 303, has held that "But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujara and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that "even in the non compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases." Both the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending amongst them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the law as cited above, the present case is a good case for exercise of power by the Court to quash summoning order as well as entire proceedings. The dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature that has been mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer. NA528 No. 5272 of 2025 2 The present application for quashing filed under Section 528 BNSS comes within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019 dated 02.09.2025. In view of above, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3187 of 2014(Ramdas Verma vs. Chandrabhan Verma and others) under Section 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, are hereby quashed. The present application under Section 528 BNSS is accordingly, allowed. October 27, 2025 P.P. NA528 No. 5272 of 2025 3 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad