SEEMA DEVI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14468 of 2026

Seema Devi And Another
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Amit Kumar Rai, G.A.
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   Rajesh Kumar Tiwari

Court No. - 80
                  HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. D. P.
Singh holding brief of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application U/s 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants
with a prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding of
Sessions Trial No. 758/2021 arising out of case crime No.51/21 U/S 427,
504,506,341 IPC, & 3(1)d, 3(2) (Va) SC/ST Act P.S.- Cantt, Varanasi,
pending in the court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act
Varanasi in pursuance of the compromise arrived between parties.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have
settled the dispute through the compromise. Learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 has returned back the compensation amount of
Rs.75,000/- vide challan No. DL-95942 dated 21.04.2026 drawn in favour of
the District Social Welfare Officer, Varanasi, which is placed on record.
 The parties have appeared before the Court concerned for verification of the
compromise. The said compromise has been duly verified by the Special
Judge (S.C./S.T. Act),Varanasi, vide order dated 01.05.2026.

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.
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
                                                               NA528 No. 14468 of 2026
                                     2


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. Recently, the law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of
settlement arrived between the parties, in the matters under the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as has
been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635 decided on 25.10.2021 has held
that: "the Court has to be mindful of the fact that the 1989 Act has been enacted
keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17
and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of
these vulnerable communities; as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the
victims of caste-based atrocities. However, when such offence is primarily private or
civil in nature, or where the alleged offence not committed on account of the caste of
the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of
the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings.
Further, in such cases, the Court ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the
complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will
and not on account of any duress."

8. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled. 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
                                                                                                 NA528 No. 14468 of 2026
                                                                       3


                                    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
                                    Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujara 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. Both 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 personal 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 proceeding of Sessions Trial No.
                                    758/2021 arising out of case crime No.51/21 U/S 427, 504,506,341 IPC, &
                                    3(1)d, 3(2) (Va) SC/ST Act P.S.- Cantt, Varanasi, pending in the court of
                                    Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Varanasi, are hereby
                                    quashed.

                                    14. The present application is, accordingly, allowed.


                                                                                            (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Aditya Tripathi




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