AMANDEEP SINGH ALIAS SONU SINGH AND 4 OTHERSversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7558 of 2024

Amandeep Singh Alias Sonu Singh And 4 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Prem Narayan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A.

Court No. - 78
                 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Prem Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to allow
the application and quash the entire proceeding of Case No.23876 of 2023
(State v. Amandeep Singh @ Sonu), arising out of cognizance order dated
09.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Meerut as well as
charge-sheet No. 102 of 2023 dated 15.06.2023 registered as Case Crime
No. 114 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 of
D.P. Act, Police Station-Hastinapur, District Meerut.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the parties appeared
before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise dated
29.11.2023, (Annexure No. 4). The said compromise has been duly verified
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Meerut vide order dated
14.05.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises
out of matrimonial discord between the applicants and the opposite party
No.2. It is also argued that the parties have willingly entered into a
settlement and not under duress or threat or coercion and are not interested
in pursuing the matter pending in the Court concerned and, therefore, the
                                                                 A482 No. 7558 of 2024
                                    2


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."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai
                                                                                                    A482 No. 7558 of 2024
                                                                       3


                                    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 482 Cr.P.C.,
                                    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 above, the entire proceeding of Case No.23876 of 2023 (State
                                    v. Amandeep Singh @ Sonu), arising out of cognizance order dated
                                    09.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Meerut as well as
                                    charge-sheet No. 102 of 2023 dated 15.06.2023 registered as Case Crime
                                    No. 114 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 of
                                    D.P. Act, Police Station-Hastinapur, District Meerut, are hereby quashed.

                                    14. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is, accordingly,
                                    allowed.



                                                                                            (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    Aditya Tripathi




Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad