HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28866 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed to quash the order dated 15.03.2024 summoning the applicants for trial under Sections 323, 498-A and 504 IPC passed by the learned Court of Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2023 and further to quash the impugned Case No. 22 of 2023 pending before the learned Court of Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, filed for the offence under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner and his mother and to direct the initiation of appropriate action against respondent no. 3 for harassing a senior citizen and presenting a manipulated report before the Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant no. 1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 and on account of matrimonial dispute, opposite party no. 2 initiated various criminal proceedings against the applicant and in all the matters opposite party no. 2 and applicant have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. The proceeding u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the opposite party no. 2 was allowed by judgment and order dated 13.07.2026. He next submits that parties are living separately in para 7 of the supplementary affidavit which is filed today it has been stated which is quoted below:- "That parties have settled all their claims, counterclaims etc. and deponent wife of applicant has received her Stridhan permanent alimony, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rizvi Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sharad Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Shobhit Nigam .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) maintenance amount. The amount described in plaint as Demand Draft No. 952208 (State Bank of India) dated 20.11.2025 of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) received and amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) has been paid as a Fixed deposited in AXIS Bank as Account No. 926040089384579 in favour of her daughter namely Vidushi Nigam @ Meeshu a period of 120 Month(s). For kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court a copy of the bank receipt demand draft no. 952208 (State Bank of India) dated 20.11.2025 of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) and Fixed deposit of R. 20,00,000/-(Twenty Lakhs) in AXIS Bank as Account No. 926040089384579 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit." 4. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute with the conditions that has been fulfilled. The applicant and opposite party no. 2 has withdrawn all the criminal proceedings pending between the parties and today, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 by supplementary affidavit has stated in para 10 that the parties are not interest to pursue any criminal proceeding pending against the applicant and no dispute appears to be pending between the parties and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. 6. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of NA528 No. 28866 of 2025 2 certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 summoning the applicants for trial under Sections 323, 498-A and 504 IPC passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2023, is hereby quashed. 10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed. September 14, 2026 Nisha NA528 No. 28866 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- nisha kumari High Court of Judicature at Allahabad