Vibhas Chandra vs State Of U.P. And Another

2. Heard Sri Samarth Krishna, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

3. Notice issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 03.04.2025 has been served personally as per office report dated 13.04.2026. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.

4. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Vibhas Chandra, with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 12.02.2019 in Case Crime No. 48 of 2018 as well as charge sheet no. 01 dated 11.10.2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Prayagraj, pending before the court of ACJM-II, Prayagraj and with the further prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case, during the pendency of present application.

5. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.

6. As per report of Mediation Centre dated 11.09.2025 the parties have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them further they have decided to reunite and live together rest of their lives in view of interim settlement agreement dated 15.05.2025.

7. As per the office report dated 13.04.2026, a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record.

8. From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said order the mediation proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 11.09.2025 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising in the present matter. The parties have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them, the said fact is mentioned in para 7(n) of the said mediation report.

9. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the said proposition.

10. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

11. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicant(s).

12. The present application is allowed.

13. The summoning order dated 12.02.2019 as well as charge sheet no. 01 dated 11.10.2018 passed in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

May 7, 2026

M. ARIF