Allahabad High Court

RAJNEESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: SANJIV KUMAR

Holding

The High Court quashed the Sessions Trial proceedings on the ground that the parties had mutually compromised and the dispute was of a private nature without wider social impact.

Summary

The applicant Rajneesh was charged under Sections 307 and 323 IPC for assaulting an informant and his relatives with a sickle, causing only superficial injuries. Both parties later entered into a compromise, which was verified by the trial court on 13‑02‑2026. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Naushey Ali (2025) and other precedents, the High Court examined whether such serious offences could be quashed despite the compromise. It held that, because the dispute was essentially private, had no wider social impact, and the compromise was duly verified, the criminal proceedings could be terminated. Consequently, the application under Section 528 CrPC was allowed and the Sessions Trial No.1551 of 2022 was quashed.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can be a ground to quash criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 307 and 323 IPC.
Whether offences of attempted murder (Section 307 IPC) are so serious that they cannot be quashed despite a private settlement.
Whether verification of the compromise by the trial court suffices to invoke the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482, 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323

Subjects

compromise
quash
Section 307 IPC
Section 323 IPC
inherent powers
Criminal Procedure
private settlement
serious offence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17350 of 2025

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Naveen Singh, Tej Om Prakash
Gupta

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on
record.

2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State, Sri Tej Om Prakash Gupta, learned Counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

3. The instant application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings
of Sessions Trial No.1551 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.37 of 2022,
under Sections 307 and 323 I.P.C., Police Station Basai Mohammadpur,
District Firozabad as well as charge-sheet dated 23.04.2022.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicants as well as opposite party No.2 jointly
submitted that vide order dated 07.01.2026 a direction was given to the Trial
Court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In
pursuance of the aforesaid order, the parties have verified the compromise as
informed by the Trial Court vide report dated 13.02.2026.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party
no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which
has duly been verified by the Trial Court vide report dated 13.02.2026.

6. Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected
between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the Trial Court.

7. This matter pertains to offences under Sections 307 and 323 of the IPC.
NA528 No. 17350 of 2025
2

As per the prosecution case, the applicant attacked the first informant with
the intention to kill by assaulting him with a Gandasa (sickle), though the
informant escaped unhurt. Upon hearing the alarm, his nephew Shivam and
Chandra Shekhar arrived at the spot, whereupon they were also assaulted by
the applicant. The medical reports of the injured Shivam and Chandra
Shekhar indicate that Shivam sustained one lacerated wound, while Chandra
Shekhar sustained two abrasions on his left finger and the right side of his
face. All the injuries are simple in nature, superficial and situated on non-
vital parts of the body.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of
U.P. and Another (2025) 4 SCC 78 has held as under:-

"15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc.
would 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 sustained,
whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate 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 paras
NA528 No. 17350 of 2025
3

29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh
should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in
the circumstances stated hereinabove;"

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed
and entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.1551 of 2022 arising out of Case
Crime No.37 of 2022, under Sections 307 and 323 I.P.C., Police Station
Basai Mohammadpur, District Firozabad as well as charge-sheet dated
23.04.2022 are hereby quashed

May 12, 2026
LN Tripathi
(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…