HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39066 of 2025 Court No. - 79 (SL No.98) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Vakalatnama and a short counter affidavit filed by Sri Mandeep Singh, on behalf of the opposite party no.2, today in court, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Tikendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gaurav Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mandeep Singh, on behalf of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet No. 32 of 2020 dated 06.02.2020 as well as impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 26.06.2020 passed in Case No. 509/IX of 2020 (State vs. Govind Jadaun and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 332 of 2019 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Mathura, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C. (Crime Against Women)/ Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. 4. Learned counsel of the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 is the wife of applicant no.1 herein. There was a matrimonial discord between them, due to which the instant F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicants herein. However, learned counsel for the applicants submits that after submission of the charge-sheet in the instant case the parties the parties have settled their disputes amicably and a compromise dated 07.11.2024. Accordingly, the applicant herein had filed an Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 13936 of 2025 (Govind Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sukrampal, Tikendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Govind Jadaun @ Govind Singh And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Jadaun @ Govind Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025, directing the parties to appear before the trial court concerned for verification of the compromise executed between them. As per the report received from the learned trial court, Mathura, pursuant to the directions of this court, the parties appeared before the trial court concerned on 12.09.2025 and were identified by their advocates. In presence of the parties, the compromise arrived at between the parties was duly verified. A copy of the order verifying the compromise has been annexed along with the report. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case against the applicants herein. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 admits the aforesaid facts regarding execution of compromise and its verification as well. He also supports the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings against the applicants in the instant case in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 6. Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and its settlement and verification of the compromise, does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings of the instant case against the applicants herein. 7. Having heard the submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed. Vide order dated 26.06.2020, the applicants herein were summoned for the aforesaid offenses by the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, Subsequent thereto, the parties have settled their disputes on 07.11.2024 and the instant application was filed. As per the order passed by this Court on 23.04.2025, the parties have appeared before the trial court for verification of compromise which has been accordingly verified by the trial court vide order dated 12.09.2025 and a report in this regard has been submitted. 8. Since it was a matrimonial dispute between the parties, which has been amicably settled and the compromise executed has been verified by the trial court, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the criminal proceeding pending against the applicants herein. Thus, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another : (2012) 10 NA528 No. 39066 of 2025 2 SCC 303; Prabatbhai Aahir Alias Prabatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and Another : (2017) 9 SCC 641; Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab : (2014) 6 SCC 466 and B.S.Joshi and Other vs. State of Haryana and Another : (2003) 4 SCC 67, the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings in Case No. 509/IX of 2020 (State vs. Govind Jadaun and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 332 of 2019 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Mathura, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C. (Crime Against Women)/ Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, are hereby quashed. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) October 14, 2025 Shubham Arya NA528 No. 39066 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad