MOHD ALIM AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5340 of 2026

Mohd Alim And 2 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                 :   Sushil Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   G.A., Shubham Dwivedi

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

1. Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Shubham Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicants with a prayer to allow this application and quash the entire
Criminal proceedings of Case No.76 of 2025 (State v. Mohd. Alim and
others) arising out of Case Crime No.158 of 2025 under Sections 85, 115(2),
352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station-Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun, pending before the Court of learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C./C.A.W. Jalaun at Orai as well as
Charge Sheet dated 30.04.2025 and its cognizance/ summoning order dated
06.06.2025 on the basis of compromise.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the parties appeared
before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise. The said
compromise has been duly verified and the report was forwarded by the
Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., (Crime against Women), Jalaun at
Orai, on 27.02.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises
out of personal discord between the applicants and the opposite 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
                                                                NA528 No. 5340 of 2026
                                    2


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
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another,
(2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the criminal
                                                                                                  NA528 No. 5340 of 2026
                                                                       3


                                    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 the above, the entire Criminal proceedings of Case No.76 of
                                    2025 (State v. Mohd. Alim and others) arising out of Case Crime No.158 of
                                    2025 under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of
                                    Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun,
                                    pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)
                                    F.T.C./C.A.W. Jalaun at Orai, are hereby quashed.

                                    13. 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