HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21577 of 2026 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application U/s 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to allow this application and quash the Charge-sheet dated 12.09.2025 being Charge Sheet No.367 of 2025 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.NIL of 2025, (State of U.P. v. Mohan Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.401 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (Old IPC Sections as 147, 323, 504, 506) and 3(1)Da, Dha, & 3(2)5a S.C./S.T. Act, at Police Station-Chhata, District Mathura including cognizance and summoning order dated 05.01.2026 passed by Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act Mathura. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have settled the dispute through the compromise. Learned counsel for the submits that the opposite party no. 2 has not received any compensation amount. The parties have appeared before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise. The said compromise has been duly verified by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura, vide order dated 30.06.2026 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of personal discord between the applicants and the opposite Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sunil Kumar Mishra Mohan Singh And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 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 applicants and states that he has no objection if the impugned proceeding pending against the applicants 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. Recently, the law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, in the matters under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635 decided on 25.10.2021 has held that: "the Court has to be mindful of the fact that the 1989 Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities; as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. However, when such offence is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence not committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. Further, in such cases, the Court ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress." 8. 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 NA528 No. 21577 of 2026 2 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 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." 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 under Section 528 BNSS, 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.NIL of 2025, (State of U.P. Vs. Mohan Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.401 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (Old IPC Sections as 147, 323, 504, 506) and 3(1)Da, Dha, & 3(2)5a S.C./S.T. Act, at Police Station-Chhata, District Mathura, are hereby quashed. NA528 No. 21577 of 2026 3 14. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. September 8, 2026 Aditya Tripathi NA528 No. 21577 of 2026 4 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad