Criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. if the parties have amicably settled their grievances and reached a compromise.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

3. Notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 19.12.2024. Office vide its report dated 27.4.2026 reported that notice has been served personally on the opposite party no. 2. Service of notice is thus sufficient. Despite service no one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 even in the revised list.

4. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Vijay Singh, Yaduveer Singh, Sarla Devi, with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 8.2.2023 under Sections 498A , 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 7 J.M., Mainpuri as well as entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 137 of 2022, Rama Devi vs. Vijay Singh and others, P.S.- Kishni, District Mainpuri pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 7 J.M., Mainpuri.

5. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.

6. As per report of Mediation Centre dated 18.7.2025 the parties have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.

7. As per the office report dated 14.7.2025 a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record which states that mediation between the parties is successful.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that parties have settled the dispute amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and the parties have decided to reunite and are living together as husband and wife and therefore the impugned proceedings/summoning order be quashed on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties.

9. Learned State counsel could not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties which is on record.

10. 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 18.7.2025 between the parties subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein 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(i) of the said mediation report.

11. 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.

12. 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/summoning order as prayed for by the applicants.

13. The present application is allowed.

14. The impugned summoning order and proceedings of