# Mahendra Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 852 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-02-17 - **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 33773 of 2025 - **Bench:** Tej Pratap Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahendra-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54212 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES In the case of Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 574, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has given an expression of 'rarest of rare case', while describing the scope of Section 482 CrPC. This view is consistently maintained by Hon'ble the Supreme Court till the present day, which is settled by 'en' number of judgments, latest are Naresh Potteries Vs. Aarti Industries, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 18 and Punit Beriwala Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983. 18. In the present case, it is a fact situation that the victim was a divorced lady. The victim's divorce is not mentioned ever in the FIR or in the statement of the victim, though it is an admitted fact. It is also a fact that the relation between the applicant and the victim started from the year 2019 on the promise of marriage, which continued for a long period upto the year 2025. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant and victim are educated, in a job and had frequent sexual intercourse. Now, the point of concern is only about the consent or not consent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in catena of judgments, has observed that two able minded adults, if maintain a long term physical relationship, then a presumption would be drawn that they have voluntarily chosen their consensual relations and subsequent non-fulfillment of promise of marriage would not attract any offense. This analogy has been drawn from the case of Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055 (Paragraph 14,15) and in the cited case of Prashant (supra) in paragraph 20. 19. In view of the discussions made herein above, this Court is of the view that continuance of proceedings will tantamount to miscarriage of justice. The perusal of material available on record does not justify continuance of trial. 20. The application under section 528 BNSS is allowed. 21. Consequently, the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2944 of 2025(State of U.P. vs. Shyam Bahadur Yadav), arose out of Case Crime No.53 of 2025 for offence under Section 376(2)(n) and 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti including charge sheet dated 9.4.2023, summoning order dated 18.8.2025 are quashed. ---------- (2026) 2 ILRA 852 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J. Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 33773 of 2025 Mahendra Singh & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION 2 All. Mahendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 853 Whether the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed? HEADNOTES Criminal Law - Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections - 528, - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, - The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4:- Application under Section 528 BNSS - for quashing of charge sheet, cognizance order, and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute - FIR - charge sheet - cognizance order - plea taken that parties have amicably settled the dispute - Court observe that the law regarding quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement between parties is well settled - In light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this case is a fit one for exercising the inherent powers of this Court to quash the proceedings, charge sheet, and cognizance order - held, the application is allowed - criminal proceedings, charge sheet, and cognizance order are quashed. (Para - 4, 5) Application Allowed.(E-11) CASE LAW CITED B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another - (2003)4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation - (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab - (2012) 10 SCC 303, Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another - 2013 (83) ACC 278, Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur & others Vs. State of Gujarat & another - (2017) 9 SCC 641 LIST OF ACTS Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. LIST OF KEYWORDS Application under section 528 - settlement - law laid down - chargesheet - cognizance order - entire criminal proceedings - well settled - good case for exercising powers - quashed - allowed. CASE ARISING FROM Chargesheet dated 20.10.2019 and Cognizance Order dated 12.10.2020 passed in Criminal Case No. 1137/2020 (State Vs. Mahendra Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0091 of 2019 under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and 3 / 4 DP Act, Police Station Tehrauli, District Jhansi. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Dileep Kumar Shuukla, Shiv Kumar Singh. Counsel for Respondent(s): G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Tej Pratap Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the records.2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 1137 of 2020 (State Vs. Mahendra Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0091 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Tehrauli, District Jhansi, charge sheet dated 20.10.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 12.10.2020 passed in the aforesaid case, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Garautha, Jhansi. 854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 3. Learned counsel for the applicants states that an order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.09.2025 directing the applicants to file the said compromise deed before the court concerned which was to be verified by the court concerned. In pursuance of the said order, the court concerned on 17.09.2025 verified the said compromise. Copy of the same is on record. The same is not disputed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 4. 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. 5. 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, charge sheet as well as cognizance order as prayed for by the applicant(s). 6. The present application is allowed. 7. The entire proceedings, charge sheet as well as cognizance order of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed. ---------- (2026) 2 ILRA 854 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 43062 of 2025 Smt. Jyoti Suri ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether proceedings under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and the gang chart prepared against the applicant were valid, particularly when based on a solitary case and alleged violations of the Gangster Rules, 2021? HEADNOTES Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section - 528, - U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2, 2(b) (i) to (xxv), 3 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 - Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 126(2), 352, 351(2),