Chotalla Alias Pradeep vs State of U.P. and Another

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7025 of 2019 (Smt. Arti v. Ballu and others) under Sections 147, 323, 452, 354, 504 IPC, Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-01, Agra against them.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have appeared before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise dated 19.07.2025, ( Annexure No.4 to the application). The said compromise has been duly verified by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra, vide order dated 30.09.2025, which is placed as Annexure SA-1 to the application.

¶12

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 and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

¶13

NA528 No. 34008 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

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

¶16

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."

¶17

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujara 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."

¶18

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.

¶19

The dispute appears to be purely of a personal discord 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.

¶20

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,

¶21

NA528 No. 34008 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019 dated 02.09.2025 .

¶24

In view of the above, entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7025 of 2019 (Smt. Arti v. Ballu and others) under Sections 147, 323, 452, 354, 504 IPC, Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-01, are hereby quashed.

¶25

The present application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶26

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶27

November 6, 2025

¶28

Aditya Tripathi

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chotalla Alias Pradeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chotalla Alias Pradeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lft. Col. Anil Chandra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Magan Saxena and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajat Kulshrestha and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rihana and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Anand Sharma vs State of U.P. and 5 Others