HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23638 of 2026 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Singh Patel, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mohd. Ajmal Farooqui, 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 quash the entire criminal proceeding along with the Charge-sheet dated 26.06.2013 and cognizance order dated 12-12-2013 in Case No. 2051 of 2013 (State of of U.P. Vs Rajbeer) arising out Case Crime No. 81/2013, under Sections 354A, 354B, 509, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Uldan, District- Jhansi, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, Jhansi in pursuance to the compromise dated 12-05-2026 held between the parties, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, Jhansi and to stay the further entire proceeding (on the basis of compromise dated 12-05-2026) of the aforesaid Case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submit that they have settled their dispute through compromise dated 12.05.2026, placed as Annexure No. '4' to the present application. The said compromise has been duly verified and the report was forwarded by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, Jhansi on 14.09.2026. 4. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Virendra Singh Patel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd Ajmal Farooqui Rajbeer .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 5. 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. 6. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. 7. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. 8. 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 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 has been mutually settled between the parties to their entire NA528 No. 23638 of 2026 2 satisfaction, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer. 12. 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. 13. In view of the above, the entire proceedings against the applicant in Case No. 2051 of 2013 (State of of U.P. Vs Rajbeer) arising out Case Crime No. 81/2013, under Sections 354A, 354B, 509, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Uldan, District-Jhansi, are hereby quashed. 14. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is, accordingly, allowed. October 8, 2026 Shivani Sri. NA528 No. 23638 of 2026 3 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad