HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29527 of 2025 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a prayer to allow the present application by quashing the charge sheet No. 57 of 2025 dated 20-06-2025 submitted by the investigating officer against the applicant in Case Crime No. 0054/2025 under Sections 74, 75(1) (i) B.N.S. and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act registered at Police Station- Sikheda, District-Muzaffar Nagar as well as entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No. 53 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Mahesh Bharadwaj) arising out of Case Crime No. 0054/2025 under Sections 74, 75(1) (i) B.N.S. and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act registered at Police Station-Sikheda, District-Muzaffar Nagar pending before the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Muzaffar Nagar alongwith summoning order dated 27-06-2025 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Muzaffar Nagar by considering compromise dated 24-07-2025 by which the informant and applicant have took a decision to not to continue the proceeding of case further. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no compensation has been received by the first informant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submit that they have settled their dispute through Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anoop Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ajay Kumar Pandey Mahesh Kumar Bhardwaj Alias Mahesh Bhardwaj .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) compromise dated 24.07.2025, placed as Annexure No. '9' to the present application. The said compromise has been duly verified and the report was forwarded by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Muzaffarnagar on 26.08.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present dispute arises between the applicant 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 proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 admits the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and states that he has no objection if the impugned proceeding pending against the applicant, is quashed. 7. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. 8. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. 9. 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." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai NA528 No. 29527 of 2025 2 Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat 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." 11. 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. 12. The dispute 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. 13. The present application for quashing filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S. 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. 14. In view of the above, the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 53 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Mahesh Bharadwaj) arising out of Case Crime No. 0054/2025 under Sections 74, 75(1) (i) B.N.S. and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act registered at Police Station-Sikheda, District-Muzaffar Nagar, are hereby quashed. 15. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is, accordingly, allowed. September 9, 2026 Shivani Sri. NA528 No. 29527 of 2025 3 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad