Allahabad High Court

RISALDAR KHAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: SANJIV KUMAR

Holding

The High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings as the parties had mutually compromised and the compromise was duly verified.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under the inherent powers of the court seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 2128 of 2011, which involved offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 427 IPC. Both parties admitted that they had reached a compromise, which was verified by the trial court on 6 July 2024 and reported by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10 July 2024. The State conceded the existence of the compromise. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow the exercise of inherent powers to achieve substantial justice, the High Court held that the dispute was private, had no wider social impact, and therefore there was no useful purpose in continuing the prosecution. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the cognizance order and charge sheet.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a verified compromise between the parties.
Whether a compromise in offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 427 IPC bars the continuation of criminal prosecution.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 427, 504

Subjects

compromise
inherent powers
quash of criminal proceedings
Section 482 CrPC
IPC offences
private dispute

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16720 of 2024

Risaldar Khan And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhaskar Bhadra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajveer Chaurasiya

Court No. - 83
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Anuj Kr. Yadav, advocate holding brief of Sri Bhaskar
Bhadra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of
U.P., Shri Rajveer Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.
2 and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for
quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2128 of 2011,
arising out Case Crime No. 620 of 2011, under Sections 323, 324, 504,
427 IPC, P.S. Fatehganj Paschimi, District Bareilly, as well as the
cognizance order dated 21.12.2011 and charge sheet dated 14.7.2011.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as opposite party No.2
jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise and vide
order dated 21.5.2024, a direction was given to the learned Trial Court to
verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of
the aforesaid order, learned Trial Court has verified the contents of
compromise vide order dated 6.7.2024.

4. Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected
between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the court
below.

5. In pursuance of the order dated 21.5.2024 of this Court, A.C.J.M., Court
No.5, Bareilly has submitted his report dated 10.7.2024, which shows that
the compromise entered between the parties has been verified. A copy of the
A482 No. 16720 of 2024
2

verification order dated 6.7.2024 along with the verified compromise has
also been annexed with the report.

6. Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power
can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian
Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others
Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to
speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the
settlement is arrived at between the parties.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the parties do not
wish to pursue the case any further, the dispute is essentially of a private
nature and has no wider social impact. Since it has been mutually settled
between the parties by way of a compromise, no useful purpose would be
served by proceeding with the matter further.

8. For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and
entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2128 of 2011, arising out Case
Crime No. 620 of 2011, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 427 IPC, P.S.
Fatehganj Paschimi, District Bareilly, as well as the cognizance order
dated 21.12.2011 and charge sheet dated 14.7.2011 are hereby quashed.

(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vandana

Digitally signed by :-
VANDANA GAUTAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…