HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17094 of 2021 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ajani Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 10139 of 2021, State v. Mohammad Nazish and Others under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and under Sections 3, 4, 8 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi including the charge-sheet No. A39 of 2021 dated 19.06.2021 filed in Case Crime No. 0097 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 377, 313, 323, 354, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and under Sections 3, 4, 8 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the parties appeared before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise. The said compromise has been duly verified and the report was forwarded by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, on 09.09.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of personal discord between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aniruddha Gupta, Gaurav Tiwari, Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anjani Kumar, Ashutosh Singh, G.A., Lallan Prasad Singh, Manoj Kumar Mishra, Satyendra Kumar Singh, Vyomesh Kumar Srivastava Mohammad Nazish And 7 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, it has been held that "High Courts have the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash First Information Reports (FIRs) and criminal proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes where a genuine settlement has been reached between the parties. The Court clarified that Section 320 Cr.P.C., which lists compoundable offences, does not restrict this power, and exercising it is crucial for promoting amicable settlements and serving the ends of justice, even if the offences are otherwise non-compoundable." 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." A482 No. 17094 of 2021 2 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. 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 matrimonial in 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. 10139 of 2021, State v. Mohammad Nazish and Others under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and under Sections 3, 4, 8 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi including the charge-sheet No. A39 of 2021 dated 19.06.2021 filed in Case Crime No. 0097 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 377, 313, 323, 354, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and under Sections 3, 4, 8 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, are hereby quashed. 14. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. September 23, 2026 Aditya Tripathi A482 No. 17094 of 2021 3 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad