Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135100 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29230 of 2025 Applicant :- Shahjad Alias Shajad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.S. Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Satish Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, who preferred vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet no.250 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 14.09.2021 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No.582 of 2021 (Session Case No.1065 of 2021) (State Vs. Shahjad and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.390 of 2021, under sections 452, 354A, 326A, 307, 504 IPC and sections 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, P.S. Sardhana, District- Meerut, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.3, Meerut. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Meerut on dated 03.05.2025, which has been appended as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed in support of this application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise. 5. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 58 of the said judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. 6. 6. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. 7. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, charge-sheet no.250 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 14.09.2021 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No.582 of 2021 (Session Case No.1065 of 2021) (State Vs. Shahjad and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.390 of 2021, under sections 452, 354A, 326A, 307, 504 IPC and sections 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, P.S. Sardhana, District- Meerut, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.3, Meerut, are hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. 9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all, opposite party no.2 feels that she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, she may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application. 10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad