HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30732 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of applicants is taken on record. 2. This matter is being taken up out of turn from the category of cases which have been mentioned in the morning on account of urgency. Heard learned counsel for parties. 3. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case no. 32 of 2026 (State vs. Anita Srivastava) arising out of Case Crime no. 143 of 2025 under sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS PS- Barhapur, District Bijnor along with charge sheet 7.5.2026 and cognizance order dated 4.7.2026 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Nagina, Bijnor. 4. In compliance of earlier order passed by this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned court concerned and the same has been preferred today by learned counsel for applicants by way of supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties. 5. Learned counsel for opposite parties showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicant. 6. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pallavi Mishra, Vivek Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Uma Nath Pandey Anita Srivastav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) learned counsel for the parties and it has been submitted that there would be no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise. 7. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 58 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 an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. 8. 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. 9. In case of H.N.Pandakumar vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC 37], Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that 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. 10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of Case no. 32 of 2026 (State vs. Anita Srivastava) arising out of Case Crime no. 143 of 2025 under sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS , PS- Barhapur, District Bijnor, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants herein. 10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. September 21, 2026 Shaswat NA528 No. 30732 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad