PREETI SONI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8123 of 2026

Preeti Soni And Another
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Arvind Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A.

Court No. - 81
                   HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava on behalf
of the informant-respondent no. 4 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A.
appearing for the State respondent

3. Present application has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated
2.4.2025 along with cognizance / summoning order dated 28.1.2026
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi as well as entire proceeding of
Case No. 1731 of 2026 (State vs. Sunil Singh and another), arising out of
Case Crime No. 41 of 2025, under Section 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S.
and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants
and the opposite party no. 2-informant have entered into compromise on
7.10.2025. The first information report was lodged by the daughter of the
applicant no. 1 against her mother and friend of the mother. Now matter
has been amicably resolved between the parties and compromise has been
made on 7.10.2025. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants
that in view of the compromise dated 7.10.2025 proceedings against the
present applicants be quashed.

5. It is further contended that in view of the said compromise, the pending
                                                               NA528 No. 8123 of 2026
                                   2


proceedings before the court below 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.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants 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.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned
A.G.A. for the State have no objection to the above submissions.

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 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
                                                                NA528 No. 8123 of 2026
                                    3


     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."

9. In a recent judgment in 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
                                                                 NA528 No. 8123 of 2026
                                    4


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. 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 applicants. In fact, the charges against
the applicants stand impliedly withdrawn and abandoned, therefore, in
order to secure ends of justice, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

11. 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 below, 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
                                                                                            NA528 No. 8123 of 2026
                                                                   5


                                    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 below.

                                    12. 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) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby
                                    quashed.

                                    13. In view of the aforesaid, the charge-sheet dated 2.4.2025 along with
                                    cognizance / summoning order dated 28.1.2026 passed by Chief Judicial
                                    Magistrate, Jhansi as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 1731 of 2026
                                    (State vs. Sunil Singh and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of
                                    2025, under Section 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 75 of
                                    Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Police
                                    Station Kotwali, District Jhansi are hereby quashed.

                                    14. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.



                                                                                       (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Lalit Shukla




Digitally signed by :-
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad