Smt. Guddi Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35394 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Guddi Devi

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Tej Om Prakash Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Shiv Shankar Kaithal, G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 290 of 2020 (Smt. Guddi Devi Vs. Pramod Kumar Rathour and others) under Sections 452, 354B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)D, 3(1)B SC/ST Act, P.S. Linepar, District-Firozabad as well as summoning order dated 23.07.2021 and compromise rejection order dated 12.11.2024, Special Judge SC/ST Act, Firozabad .

¶10

Briefly stated, the case is that the applicant has filed an application 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 21.01.2020 against the applicant which was registered as a Complaint Case No. 290 of 2020 (Smt. Guddi Devi v. Pramod Kumar Rathour and others). After recording the statement of the applicant and witness, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were summoned to face the trial. Thereafter, the parties have entered into a compromise on 05.11.2024 and settled their dispute outside the court. The said compromise was filed before the court concerned for verification and the same was rejected by the court below on 12.11.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed present application under Section 528 BNSS in which the Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 16.09.2025, ordered for verification of the said compromise.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and

¶12

NA528 No. 35394 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have settled the dispute through compromise dated 05.11.2024 placed as Annexure No. 5 to the application. The said compromise has been duly verified by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Firojabad vide order dated 07.11.2025.

¶15

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 admits the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and states that he has no objection if the impugned proceeding pending against the applicant is quashed.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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."

¶19

Both the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending

¶20

NA528 No. 35394 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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 .

¶25

In view of the above, entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 23.07.2021 and compromise rejection order dated 12.11.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Firozabad in Complaint Case No. 290 of 2020 (Smt. Guddi Devi Vs. Pramod Kumar Rathour and others) under Sections 452, 354B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)D, 3(1)B SC/ST Act, P.S. Linepar, District-Firozabad, are hereby quashed.

¶26

The present application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶27

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶28

December 1, 2025 Sunil Kr. Gupta

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Guddi Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Guddi Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

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

Aditya Kumar Agnihotri and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Priti Kheria and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Asad vs State of U.P. and Another

Narrottam Das Munna vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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