Allahabad High Court

NAJAMA AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

Holding

The High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings as the parties had fully settled the dispute, making continuation of the case oppressive and unnecessary.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 62 of 2021, which involved offences under Sections 147, 452, 323 and 506 IPC. The parties had entered into a settlement on 28 July 2025, which was verified and reported to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Both the opposite party and the Additional Government Advocate accepted the settlement and raised no objection to quashing. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of criminal proceedings where a full compromise exists—even in non‑compoundable cases—held that continuation of the case would cause oppression and serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 and ordered the entire criminal proceedings to be quashed.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal case involving offences under Sections 147, 452, 323 and 506 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a full settlement between the parties.
Whether the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to quash non‑compoundable offences when the parties have resolved the dispute and continuation would cause injustice.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 452, 506

Subjects

quash
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
settlement
compromise
non‑compoundable offences
High Court jurisdiction
IPC offences
civil flavour cases
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4689 of 2021

Najama And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Nand, Om Narayan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Mishra

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

1. Heard Mr. Devraj Singh, holding brief of Mr. Krishna Nand, learned
counsel for the applicants, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for
the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a
prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No. 62 of 2021 (State Versus Shahjad and others) under
Sections 147, 452, 323, 506 IPC including charge sheet No. 378 of 2020
dated 19.10.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 347 of 2020, Police
Station-Kutubsher, District-Saharanpur, pending in the Court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur and to stay the further proceeding
of the aforesaid Criminal Case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite
party No. 2 submit that they have settled their dispute through
compromise dated 28.07.2025, placed as Annexure No. 'S.A.-1' to the
supplementary affidavit dated 30.05.2026. The said compromise has been
duly verified and the report was forwarded by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Saharanpur on 31.08.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute
arises between the applicants and the opposite party No. 2. It is also
argued that the parties have willingly entered into a settlement and not
under duress or threat or coercion and are not interested in pursuing the
A482 No. 4689 of 2021
2

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
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.

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 pre-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
A482 No. 4689 of 2021
3

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 has been mutually settled between the parties to their
entire satisfaction, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in
allowing the prosecution to continue any longer.

12. The present application for quashing filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
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 proceedings of Criminal Case No. 62
of 2021 (State Versus Shahjad and others) under Sections 147, 452, 323,
506 IPC including charge sheet No. 378 of 2020 dated 19.10.2020 arising
out of Case Crime No. 347 of 2020, Police Station-Kutubsher, District-
Saharanpur, are hereby quashed.

14. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly,
allowed.

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
September 9, 2026
Shivani Sri.

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…