Allahabad High Court

RAMVEER SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

Holding

The High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding as the parties had reached a genuine settlement of the matrimonial dispute.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash criminal case No. 15/IX/2025, which involved offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, arising from a matrimonial dispute. The parties had entered into a voluntary compromise dated 17 June 2025, which was verified by the Civil Judge on 17 November 2025, and both sides agreed to withdraw the pending proceedings. The High Court examined the settled law on quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of genuine settlement, citing Supreme Court judgments in B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, Parbatbhai Ahir and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani. It held that the settlement removed any prospect of conviction and that continuing the prosecution would cause oppression and injustice. Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, allowing the application.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed on the ground of a voluntary settlement between the parties.
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (and Section 528 B.N.S.S.) to quash non‑compoundable offences when a genuine compromise exists.
Whether the settlement was made without duress, coercion or threat, thereby satisfying the requirement for quashing.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320, 482, 528
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 506

Subjects

settlement
quashing of criminal proceedings
matrimonial dispute
Section 528
inherent jurisdiction
non‑compoundable offences
compromise
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39694 of 2025

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Mani Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Ajai Mani Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Sharad Kumar Singh, 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 of Criminal Case No.
15/IX/2025 (State Vs. Ramveer Singh and others) under Sections 498A, 323,
506, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Mahila Thana, District-Mathura (arising
out of Case Crime No. 149/2023), pending in the court of Civil Judge
(Junior Division), FTC (Crime Against Women), Judicial Magistrate,
Mathura, including the charge sheet (No.150/2023) dated 07.11.2023 and the
cognizance order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the court of Civil Judge
(Junior Division), FTC (Crime Against Women), Judicial Magistrate,
Mathura, taking cognizance and issuing process through summon against the
applicants, in terms of the compromise entered into between the first
informant and the applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have settled
their dispute through compromise dated 17.06.2025, placed as Annexure No.
'4' to the present application which has been duly verified by the Court of
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. (Crime Against
Women)/Judicial Magistrate, Mathura vide order dated 17.11.2025.

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
NA528 No. 39694 of 2025
2

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 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
NA528 No. 39694 of 2025
3

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 view of above, the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.
15/IX/2025 (State Vs. Ramveer Singh and others) under Sections 498A, 323,
506, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Mahila Thana, District-Mathura (arising
out of Case Crime No. 149/2023), are hereby quashed.

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

May 7, 2026
Shivani Sri.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…