HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23391 of 2025 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to allow this Criminal Misc. Application and to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 04.11.2020 as well as the cognizance order dated 05.02.2021 in Case No. 329 of 2021 (State Vs. Abhinash Kuril and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 254 of 2020, under Sections 498- A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station Saadh, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghatampur, Kanpur Dehat in view of compromise dated 16.12.2024. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2025, parties had appeared before the Court concerned along with the original copy of the affidavit/compromise dated 16.12.2024. A communication dated 21.08.2025 has been received from the Judicial Magistrate/ Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghatampur, Kanpur Dehat stating that parties have appeared before him and compromise has been duly verified. Counsel for the parties do not propose to file the counter and rejoinder affidavits. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present dispute arises out of personal discord between the applicant 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Abhinash Kuril .....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 counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. 5. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant. 6. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. 7. In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, it has been held that High Courts have the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) to quash First Information Reports (FIRs) and criminal proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes where a genuine settlement has been reached between the parties. The Court clarified that Section 320 Cr.P.C., which lists compoundable offences, does not restrict this power, and exercising it is crucial for promoting amicable settlements and serving the ends of justice, even if the offences are otherwise non-compoundable. 8. 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." 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai 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 NA528 No. 23391 of 2025 2 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." 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The present application for quashing filed U/S 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. 13. In view of the above, the entire proceedings of Case No. 329 of 2021 (State Vs. Abhinash Kuril and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 254 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station Saadh, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghatampur, Kanpur Dehat are hereby quashed. 14. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. September 12, 2025 Nadeem NA528 No. 23391 of 2025 3 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad