HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16251 of 2025 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. Heard Mr. Abdul Majid, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Anuj Gond, holding brief of Deepankar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to allow this application and quash the charge-sheet dated 11.10.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 11.02.2025 and entire proceeding of Case No. 639 of 2025 (State v. Sultan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 258 of 2024, under Sections 333, 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS (under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.), Police Station-Qila, District-Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, District-Bareilly on the basis of compromise dated 22.04.2025. Pursuant to the order dated 08.05.2025, the parties have appeared before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise dated 22.04.2025, (Annexure No. 5 to the application). The said compromise has been duly verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Bareilly vide order dated 13.06.2025, which is placed as SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abdul Majid Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepankar Chaudhary, G.A. Sultan And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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." 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. 16251 of 2025 2 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. In view of the above, the charge-sheet dated 11.10.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 11.02.2025 and entire proceeding of Case No. 639 of 2025 (State v. Sultan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 258 of 2024, under Sections 333, 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS (under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.), Police Station-Qila, District-Bareilly, are hereby quashed. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. September 17, 2025 Aditya Tripathi NA528 No. 16251 of 2025 3 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad