HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30609 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA. 2. The present application has been filed to quash cognizance/summoning order dated 03.02.2026 along with entire criminal proceedings of Misc. Case No.67 of 2025, Case No.485 of 2026 (State Vs. Mohd. Yaseen and others), arising out of Case Crime No.138 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 BNS, P.S. Deorania, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Baherhi, Bareilly, on the basis of compromise. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned court concerned on dated 07.08.2026 which has been appended with this application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned AGA. 4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and as such, there would be no harm and error if 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 54 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Humaira Falak, Ramajan Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd. Yaseen And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. 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. In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC 37], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed hat if the offence is non- compoundable which is having no serious impact on society then there would be no harm and error if the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise entered into between the parties. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:- "5. In light of the amicable settlement and the complainant's unequivocal consent, as evidenced by the Interlocutory Application, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the present M.A. While the offense under Section 326 IPC is non- compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the exceptional circumstances of this case, including the voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the exercise of this Court's inherent powers to give effect to the compromise." 8. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, cognizance/summoning order dated 03.02.2026 along with entire criminal proceedings of Misc. Case No.67 of 2025, Case No.485 of 2026 (State Vs. Mohd. Yaseen and others), arising out of Case Crime No.138 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 BNS, P.S. Deorania, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Baherhi, Bareilly, are hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. September 14, 2026 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 30609 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad