VISHAL VERMA AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2180 of 2026

Vishal Verma And 4 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Krishna Kant Dubey, Santosh Kumar
                                Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajeet Kumar, Anurag Pandey, G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred to
allow this application and quash the entire proceeding pending including the
charge sheet dated 24.06.2025 and the learned court below has taken
cognizance on 08.12.2025 in Case No. 100076 of 2025 (State Versus Vishal
Verma and others) registered with Case Crime No. 1174 of 2024 under
Sections 498A, 323, 342, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police
Station-Indrapuram, District-Ghaziabad pending before C.J.M., Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have settled
their dispute through compromise dated 05.02.2026, placed at Annexure No.
'S.A.-1' to the supplementary affidavit which has been duly verified by the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide order dated 15.04.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises
out of matrimonial discord between the applicant No. 1 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 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.
                                                                NA528 No. 2180 of 2026
                                    2

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 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.
                                                                                         NA528 No. 2180 of 2026
                                                                  3

                                    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 view of above, the entire proceedings in Case No. 100076 of 2025
                                    (State Versus Vishal Verma and others) registered with Case Crime No.
                                    1174 of 2024 under Sections 498A, 323, 342, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4
                                    D.P. Act, Police Station-Indrapuram, District-Ghaziabad, are hereby
                                    quashed.

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

                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Shivani Sri.
                                                                                   (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad