YUSUF KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22813 of 2023

Yusuf Khan
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Krishna Shankar, Sanjay Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, G.A., Ganesh
                                Shankar Patel

Court No. - 80
                 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Krishna Shankar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ganesh
Shankar Patel, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for
the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicants with a prayer to allow the application and quash the charge-sheet
dated 15.07.2019 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No.
73 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 357 of 2019 under Sections 452,
352, 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station-Auraiya, District-Auraiya.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the parties appeared
before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise. The said
compromise has been duly verified and the report was forwarded by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Auraiya, on
22.07.2024

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises
out of personal discord between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2.
It is also argued that the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the
matter pending in the Court concerned and, therefore, the impugned
proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties
and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 admits the arguments of
                                                                  A482 No. 22813 of 2023
                                     2


learned counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the
impugned proceeding pending against the applicants is quashed.

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

7. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled. In the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs.Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 held as follows:

"15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings for the non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can
be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the
entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special
statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender;

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. rwould fall in the category
of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the
society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings
for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious
impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of
the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst
themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there
is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation
of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC.
For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury
                                                                 A482 No. 22813 of 2023
                                    3


sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge
sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible
when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in
paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh
(supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove"

8. 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 per-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."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat 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."

10. Both the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending
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.

11. The dispute appears to be purely of a personal discord that has been
mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no
                                                                                            A482 No. 22813 of 2023
                                                                     4


                                    useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any
                                    longer.

                                    12. The present application for quashing filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
                                    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.

                                    13. In view of the above, the entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No.
                                    73 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 357 of 2019 under Sections 452,
                                    352, 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station-Auraiya, District-Auraiya against the
                                    applicant, are hereby quashed.

                                    14. The present application is, accordingly, allowed.



                                                                                       (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Aditya Tripathi




Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad