Allahabad High Court
KALUVA SINGH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- NAND PRABHA SHUKLA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that a genuine settlement between the parties permits the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to dismiss the case.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 780 of 2025) arising from allegations under IPC sections 498A and 323 and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The dispute stemmed from a matrimonial conflict that had been referred to the Court's Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where the parties executed a settlement agreement on 4 April 2025. Both parties, as well as the Additional Government Advocate, consented to the withdrawal of the case. Relying on the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC and precedents such as B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court held that a genuine settlement justifies quashing even non‑compoundable offences. Consequently, the entire proceeding was quashed and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute involving non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the case pursuant to an application under Section 528 BNSS.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320, 482, 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A
Subjects
- settlement
- matrimonial dispute
- quashing criminal proceedings
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- non‑compoundable offence
- IPC 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46393 of 2025
Kaluva Singh And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shanti Dhar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma, G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shanti Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma, 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 BNSS has been filed to allow
this application and quash the entire proceeding of case No.780 of 2025
(State Vs. Munish Singh and others), arising out of case crime No.113 of
2024 under section 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station
Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar as
well as charge sheet dated 24.06.2024 alongwith cognizance order dated
05.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the matrimonial
dispute between the applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 was referred to
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in First Appeal No. 1074 of
2024 wherein the parties have settled the disputes as per terms and
conditions of settlement agreement dated 04.04.2025.
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
NA528 No. 46393 of 2025
2
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. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled. 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
NA528 No. 46393 of 2025
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."
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.
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 above, the entire proceeding of case No.780 of 2025 (State
Vs. Munish Singh and others), arising out of case crime No.113 of 2024
under section 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Anoopshahar,
District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar, are hereby
quashed.
14. The present application under Section 528 BNSS is, accordingly,
allowed.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
May 7, 2026
Aditya Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…