Allahabad High Court

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Anand Vikram, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to allow this Criminal Misc. Application and to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 18.12.2022 and summoning order dated 16.02.2023 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Moradabad under Sections 489A, 323, 377 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 against applicant No. 1 and under Sections 498A, 323, 354(B) of IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant No. 2 and under Sections 489A, 323 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against applicants No. 3,4 and 5 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case (Old Number 62 of 2025 which New Number 10607 of 2023, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Moradabad arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 354(B) IPC and under Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad.

4. Pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2025, parties had appeared before the 2 NA528 No. 23498 of 2025 Court concerned along with the original copy of the affidavit/compromise dated 23.04.2025. A communication dated 04.08.2025 has been received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Moradabad stating that parties have appeared before him and compromise has been duly verified.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant No.1 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. Counsel for the parties do not propose to file the counter and rejoinder affidavits.

6. 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.

7.Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for applicants.

8. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled.

9. 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..

10. Even 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, 3 NA528 No. 23498 of 2025 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."

11. 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."

12. Both 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.

13. The dispute appears to be purely of a personal 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.

14. The present application for quashing filed U/S 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.

15. In view of the above, charge-sheet dated 18.12.2022 and summoning order dated 16.02.2023 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5 , Moradabad under Sections 489A, 323, 377 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under Section 3/4 of 4 NA528 No. 23498 of 2025 Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 against applicant No. 1 and under Sections 498A, 323, 354(B) of IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant No. 2 and under Sections 489A, 323 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 against applicants No. 3,4 and 5 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case (Old Number 62 of 2025) New Number 10607 of 2023, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Moradabad arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 354(B) IPC and under Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad are hereby quashed.

16. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. September 12, 2025 Nadeem (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Anand Vikram, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to allow this Criminal Misc. Application and to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 18.12.2022 and summoning order dated 16.02.2023 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Moradabad under Sections 489A, 323, 377 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 against applicant No. 1 and under Sections 498A, 323, 354(B) of IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant No. 2 and under Sections 489A, 323 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against applicants No. 3,4 and 5 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case (Old Number 62 of 2025 which New Number 10607 of 2023, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Moradabad arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 354(B) IPC and under Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad.

4. Pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2025, parties had appeared before the 2 NA528 No. 23498 of 2025 Court concerned along with the original copy of the affidavit/compromise dated 23.04.2025. A communication dated 04.08.2025 has been received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Moradabad stating that parties have appeared before him and compromise has been duly verified.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant No.1 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. Counsel for the parties do not propose to file the counter and rejoinder affidavits.

6. 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.

7.Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for applicants.

8. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled.

9. 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..

10. Even 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, 3 NA528 No. 23498 of 2025 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."

11. 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."

12. Both 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.

13. The dispute appears to be purely of a personal 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.

14. The present application for quashing filed U/S 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.

15. In view of the above, charge-sheet dated 18.12.2022 and summoning order dated 16.02.2023 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5 , Moradabad under Sections 489A, 323, 377 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under Section 3/4 of 4 NA528 No. 23498 of 2025 Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 against applicant No. 1 and under Sections 498A, 323, 354(B) of IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant No. 2 and under Sections 489A, 323 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 against applicants No. 3,4 and 5 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case (Old Number 62 of 2025) New Number 10607 of 2023, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Moradabad arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 354(B) IPC and under Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad are hereby quashed.

16. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. September 12, 2025 Nadeem (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)