HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17396 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, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 62 of 2020 (Abdul Haque Vs. Mohammad Mukeem & Other) under Sections 387, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Jalaun, District Jalaun, pending before learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai. Pursuant to the order dated 23.05.2025, it was directed that as the parties had settled the dispute through compromise dated 04.03.2025, the same be referred to the Trial Court for its verification. Accordingly, a communication dated 22.07.2025 has been received from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai stating that the parties had appeared in person before the Court and the compromise has been duly verified on 17.07.2025 by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the matter relates to private dispute between the applicants and the opposite party no.2. It is also argued that the parties have willingly entered into a settlement and not under duress or threat or coercion and are not interested in pursuing the matter pending in the Court concerned and, therefore, the impugned Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohammad Mukeem And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 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. 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." NA528 No. 17396 of 2025 2 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 civil in 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. The present application for quashing filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. Considering the fact that the alleged dispute arises out of the property, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 62 of 2020 (Abdul Haque Vs. Mohammad Mukeem & Other) under Sections 387, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Jalaun, District Jalaun, pending before learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai, are hereby quashed. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. October 14, 2025 Nisha NA528 No. 17396 of 2025 3 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- nisha kumari High Court of Judicature at Allahabad