DINESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42618 of 2025

Dinesh Kumar
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :      Rakesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :      Arvind Kumar Verma, G.A.

Court No. - 80
                   HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant,
Shri Animesh Kumar Kushwaha holding brief of Shri Arvind Kumar
Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, and learned AGA for
the State-opposite party no.1.

2. Present application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing the entire
proceedings of Sessions Case No.778 of 2023 (State vs. Dinesh Kumar),
arising out of Case Crime No.86 of 2023, under Sections 376 and 506
IPC, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad, pending in the court of
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC, Court no.2,
Moradabad as well as chargesheet dated 19.02.2023 and
summoning/cognizance order dated 17.04.2023.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the parties have
entered into compromise on 29.08.2025 and the same has been verified by
the learned trial court vide order dated 15.12.2025 in pursuance of the
earlier order dated 03.11.2025 passed by this Court. It is mentioned by the
victim of the present case that the applicant and the victim were residing
together in a live-in-relationship but now separation has taken place
between them and they do not want to solemnize marriage, and the victim
of the present case does not want to prosecute the applicant in the present
case.

4. It is further contended that in view of the said compromise between the
parties, the pending proceedings against the applicant before the trial
                                                             NA528 No. 42618 of 2025
                                   2


court be quashed in the light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that
of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has
placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra
Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and
Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641
and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no. 2 have settled
their differences through compromise and as such opposite party no. 2
does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite
party no. 2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in
view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the
prosecution is allowed to go on.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer and stated that
the proceedings on the basis of compromise cannot be quashed at this
stage.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has accepted the contention
made by the learned counsel for the applicant and he accepted that
compromise had taken place between the applicant and the victim.

8. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case
the dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between
the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320
IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings
of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent powers in view of the
recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of
Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;

     "the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR
     or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and
     different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the
     offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
     plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
     with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of
                                                         NA528 No. 42618 of 2025
                              3


justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases
power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can
be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court
must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's
family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not
private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot
provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil favour 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. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case
is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
the criminal proceeding."
                                                               NA528 No. 42618 of 2025
                                    4


9. In the judgment of Ram Gopal and Another vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012), decided on 29.9.2021,
reported in (2022) 118 ACC 318, the Supreme Court once again
reiterated that even if the offences are non-compoundable, the High Court
can quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 CrPC, having regard to the nature of the offences and the fact
that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has
willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceeding. While so
holding, it has been pointed out that the High Court can indisputably
evaluate the consequential effects of the offences beyond the body of an
individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the
felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyse the very
object of the administration of criminal justice system. In para 14 of the
said judgment, the principles have been summarized as follows: -

     "14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve
     moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of
     the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be
     construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have
     the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences
     through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the
     community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous
     habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a 'settlement' through
     duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well
     said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."

10. The Supreme Court in another judgment of Madhukar and Others
vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No. 7212 of 2025, alongwith Prabhakar vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of
2025, quashed the proceedings of Case Crime No.302 of 2023, dated
20.11.2023, under Sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as quashed the proceedings of
Case Crime No.304 of 2023, dated 21.11.2023, under Sections 376, 354-
A, 354-D, 509 and 506 IPC on the basis of compromise between the
parties. Paragraph nos.6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment are reproduced
herein:-
                                                   NA528 No. 42618 of 2025
                        5


"6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section
376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature.
Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences
on the ground of settlement between the parties is
discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However,
the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the
ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must
be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.

7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual
situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including
Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier
FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events
lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that
the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More
importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has
unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case.
She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her
personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings
would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is
neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently
maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that
she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to
end. The parties have also amicably resolved their
differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these
circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve
any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for
all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the
Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, and taking into account the
categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of
the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of
the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and
would only amount to abuse of process."
                                                              NA528 No. 42618 of 2025
                                   6


11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment of Kapil Gupta vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Another), reported in (2022) 15 SCC 44,
quashed the proceedings under Section 376 IPC on the basis of
compromise between the parties and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the victim was a young lady of 23 years and she would be
faced with agony of undergoing the trial. The victim was not supporting
the prosecution case even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it
will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the request of the parties is
denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the
already overburdened criminal courts. The relevant paragraphs of the Kapil
Gupta (supra) are reproduced hereunder:-

     "6. It further appears that subsequently, in the case arising out of Section
     376 of the IPC, that is, FIR No.569 of 2020, the matter was amicably
     settled and therefore, the petition for quashing the proceedings under
     Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. came to be filed. By the impugned order, the
     High Court has dismissed the said petition.

     13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the
     Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and
     serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from
     examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such
     an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved
     would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court
     has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between
     the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may
     improve their mutual relationship.

     14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to
     what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an
     application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led
     and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should
     be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such
     an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial,
     the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power.

     15. The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the
     present case. Respondent No.2 is a young lady of 23 years. She feels that
                                                                NA528 No. 42618 of 2025
                                       7


     going through trial in one case, where she is a complainant and in the
     other case, wherein she is the accused would rob the prime of her youth.
     She feels that if she is made to face the trial rather than getting any relief,
     she would be faced with agony of undergoing the trial.

     16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been filed, the
     charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial has not yet
     commenced. It is further to be noted that since the respondent No.2
     herself is not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is
     permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the
     request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one
     more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.

     17. In that view of the matter, we find that though in a heinous or serious
     crime like rape, the Court should not normally exercise the powers of
     quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
     present case and in order to give succour to Respondent No. 2 so that she
     is saved from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one as a victim
     and one as an accused, we find that this is a fit case wherein the
     extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised to quash the criminal
     proceedings.

     18. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and proceedings in
     the criminal cases arising out of following FIRs are quashed and set
     aside:

              1. FIR No.569/2020 registered at Police Station, Mehrauli,
              New Delhi (Rape)
              2. FIR No.824/2020, registered at Police Station, Mehrauli,
              New Delhi (Extortion)"

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji Gangadhar Ingale
and others vs. The State of Maharashtra, SLP (Criminal) No. 1857 of
2026 dated 11.2.2026 quashed the proceedings as well as first
information report registered under Sections 376, 377, 420, 384, 204, 504,
506, 34 IPC, Section 66 (e) of I.T. Act, 2000 on the basis of compromise
affidavit / settlement between the parties. It was observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the victim was an adult and has filed her affidavit
                                                             NA528 No. 42618 of 2025
                                  8


before the High Court to the effect that the first information report was
lodged as a mark of protest. The possibility of conviction in the changed
circumstances is remote. The relevant paragraphs of Shivaji (supra) are
reproduced hereunder:-

          "8. A perusal of the materials available on record, would
          indicate that this is not a case of any violent sexual assault.
          The FIR is regarding few incidents that occurred 7-8 years
          ago. Admittedly, when FIR was lodged, the prosecutrix was
          an adult. In such circumstances, the affidavit of the
          prosecutrix before the High Court that FIR was lodged as a
          mark of protest on failure to convert their relationship into a
          marital bond cannot be discarded as there appears an
          element of truth in it. Ordinarily, heinous crimes are not to
          be quashed basis a settlement between the parties because
          they have wider ramifications as the society at large is
          affected. However, this appears to be a case of two persons
          who were in a relationship but could not convert their
          relationship into a marital bond due to family differences.
          The allegation that the prosecutrix was exploited when she
          was a minor would be difficult to prove because on that date
          POCSO Act was not in force and therefore, the benefit of
          presumption thereunder would not be available to the
          prosecution. Moreover, when FIR was lodged, prosecutrix
          was an adult. In such circumstances, it would be difficult to
          ascertain whether she was violated when she was a minor.

          9. Having regard to all these circumstances including the
          affidavit of the prosecutrix as also that there is remote
          possibility of such prosecution resulting in a conviction, we
          are of the view that ends of justice would be best served if the
          impugned criminal proceedings are quashed based on the
          compromise affidavit. Consequently, we allow this appeal.
          The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
          The FIR No.171 of 2017 and all proceedings emanating
          therefrom are hereby quashed."
                                                       NA528 No. 42618 of 2025
                               9


13. I have gone through the allegations/charges against the accused/s and
I am of the opinion that these are not of such nature as would fall within
the excepted class of cases where quashing the proceeding and permitting
the accused to go unpunished, would have any detrimental effect on the
society at large. As the parties have already settled their dispute, there is
no likelihood of conviction of the applicant. In fact, the charges against
the applicant stand impliedly withdrawn and abandoned, therefore, in
order to secure ends of justice, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

14. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into
compromise and appear to have settled their real disputes amicably,
which has also been verified by the Court concerned, copy of which
report is on record. Thus, it further appears that the opposite party no. 2,
who would be the key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed,
have declared their unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such
circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in
trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by
the learned court concerned.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the
compromise entered into between the parties and taking all these factors
into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be
accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10)
SCC 303, Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra
Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State
of Gujarat (supra), Madhukar (supra), Kapil Gupta (supra), and
Shivaji Gangadhar Ingale (supra), the entire proceedings of the
aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

16. In view of the aforesaid, entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.778
of 2023 (State vs. Dinesh Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.86 of
2023, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station Majhola, District
Moradabad, pending in the court of learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge/FTC, Court no.2, Moradabad as well as chargesheet dated
19.02.2023 and summoning/cognizance order dated 17.04.2023, are
                                                                                          NA528 No. 42618 of 2025
                                                                  10


                                    hereby quashed qua the applicant.

                                    17. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.



                                                                                       (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Nitendra




Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad