MOHAN SINGH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21577 of 2026

Mohan Singh And 4 Others
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)               :     Vinay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :     G.A., Sunil Kumar Mishra

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

1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, 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 Charge-sheet dated
12.09.2025 being Charge Sheet No.367 of 2025 as well as entire
proceedings of Case No.NIL of 2025, (State of U.P. v. Mohan Singh and
others) arising out of Case Crime No.401 of 2025 under Sections 191(2),
115(2), 352, 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (Old IPC Sections as 147,
323, 504, 506) and 3(1)Da, Dha, & 3(2)5a S.C./S.T. Act, at Police
Station-Chhata, District Mathura including cognizance and summoning
order dated 05.01.2026 passed by Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act
Mathura.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the parties
have settled the dispute through the compromise. Learned counsel for the
submits that the opposite party no. 2 has not received any compensation
amount. The parties have appeared before the Court concerned for
verification of the compromise. The said compromise has been duly
verified by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura, vide order dated
30.06.2026

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute
arises out of personal discord between the applicants and the opposite
                                                              NA528 No. 21577 of 2026
                                     2


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 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
                                                            NA528 No. 21577 of 2026
                                     3


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 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 proceedings of Case No.NIL of 2025,
(State of U.P. Vs. Mohan Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime
No.401 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of Bhartiya
Nyay Sanhita (Old IPC Sections as 147, 323, 504, 506) and 3(1)Da, Dha,
& 3(2)5a S.C./S.T. Act, at Police Station-Chhata, District Mathura, are
hereby quashed.
                                                                                            NA528 No. 21577 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    14. The present application is, accordingly, allowed.



                                                                                     (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Aditya Tripathi




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