RAJARSHI DUBEY AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18933 of 2026

Rajarshi Dubey And 2 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)         : Santosh Kumar Yadav, Saurabh Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    : G.A., Rahul Kumar

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

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rahul
Kumar, 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 proceeding of Case No. 496 of
2022 (State Vs. Rajarshi Dubey and others) arising out of Case Crime No.
0572 of 2020 under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act,
Police Station Ajitmal, District Auraiya as well as quash the charge dated
sheet 01.02.2021 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 28.03.2022
passed by court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate Auraiya in
Case No.496 of 2022 (State Vs. Rajarshi Dubey and others) arising out of
Case Crime No. 0572 of 2020 under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and
section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ajitmal, District Auraiya on the basis of
compromise between the parties.


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 09.04.2026 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate/FTC, auraiya.


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
impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between
                                                        NA528 No. 18933 of 2026
                                2

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.


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
                                                                                             NA528 No. 18933 of 2026
                                                                     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."


                                    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 09.04.2026, the proceeding of
                                    Case No. 496 of 2022 (State Vs. Rajarshi Dubey and others) arising out of
                                    Case Crime No. 0572 of 2020 under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and
                                    section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ajitmal, District Auraiya is hereby
                                    quashed.


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

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




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