DEVESH KANAUJIAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18867 of 2026

Devesh Kanaujia
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                 :   Abhishek Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   G.A., Prasanna Dwivedi

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

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Prasanna Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, 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 proceedings of Complaint Case
No. 4674 of 2012 (Mamta Kanaujia versus Devesh Kanaujia and others)
arising out of Case Crime No. 487 of 2007, under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station
Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending before learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate III, Kanpur Nagar on the ground of compromise
dated 06-04-2024 as well as the verification dated 02-06-2025 (Annexure
No. 2).

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants and
opposite party no. 2 have settled the dispute through compromise which
has been duly verified on 02.06.2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present dispute arises
out of matrimonial discord between the applicant 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 impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of
compromise between the parties and they do not propose to file the
                                                               NA528 No. 18867 of 2026
                                    2


counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 admits the arguments of
learned counsel for the applicant and states that he has no objection if the
impugned proceeding pending against the applicant, 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.

8. 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."

9. 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."

10. 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. 18867 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."

                                    11. 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.

                                    12. 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.

                                    13. 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.

                                    14. In terms of compromise verification dated 02.06.2026, the
                                    proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4674 of 2012 (Mamta Kanaujia
                                    versus Devesh Kanaujia and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 487 of
                                    2007, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry
                                    Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar,
                                    pending before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate III,
                                    Kanpur Nagar are hereby quashed.

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



                                                                                      (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Puspendra




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