SALEEM AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17510 of 2026

Saleem And 4 Others
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)           : Amiruddin Siddique, Ankit Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)      : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Amiruddin Siddique, learned counsel for the applicants,
learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed to
allow this application and quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 52800
of 2024 (CNR No. UPMO040645522024) (State of U.P. Versus Saleem
& Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 373 of 2024, under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506, 325, 354 of I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station:-Bilari, District:-Moradabad as well as
Charge Sheet bearing No. 382/2024 dated 03.08.2024 under Sections 498-
A, 323, 504, 506, 325, 354 of I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, Police Station:-Bilari, District:-Moradabad along-with cognizance /
summoning order dated 13.12.2024 issued / passed by Judicial
Magistrate, Moradabad in the aforementioned matter on the basis of
compromise deed /settlement-agreement dated 08.01.2026 executed
between both the parties in the aforementioned case which is pending in
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and
opposite party no. 2 have settled the dispute through compromise which
has been duly verified on 07.04.2026 by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.1, Moradabad.

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
                                                               NA528 No. 17510 of 2026
                                    2


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 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 A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the
submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties.

6. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled.

7. 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
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another,
(2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the
                                                                                           NA528 No. 17510 of 2026
                                                                         3


                                    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 B.N.S.S.
                                    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 terms of compromise verification dated 07.04.2026, the
                                    proceedings of Case No. 52800 of 2024 (CNR No. UPMO040645522024)
                                    (State of U.P. Versus Saleem & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.
                                    373 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 325, 354 of I.P.C. &
                                    Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station:-Bilari, District:-
                                    Moradabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad are
                                    hereby quashed.

                                    14. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is, accordingly,
                                    allowed.



                                                                                      (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Puspendra




Digitally signed by :-
PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad