SURENDRA PAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17547 of 2026

Surendra Pal Singh
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Vijay Singh Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A., Ramendra Singh

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

1. Heard Mr. Harshita Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Ramendra Singh, 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
applicant with a prayer to quash the Charge sheet No.01/2025 dated
03.04.2025, cognizance order dated 10.06.2025 as well as entire proceeding
of Case No.1686/2025 (State v. Surendra Pal Singh), arising out of Case
Crime No. 159 / 2024 under Sections 420, 409 I.P.C., Police Station
Sirsakalar, District Jalaun on the basis of compromise.

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
Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Kalpi at Jalaun on 11.05.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises
out of personal discord between the applicant 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
learned counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the
                                                               NA528 No. 17547 of 2026
                                    2


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. 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."

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

9. 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.

10. The dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature that 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.
                                                                                            NA528 No. 17547 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    11. The present application for quashing filed under Section 528 BNSS
                                    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.

                                    12. In view of the above, the entire proceeding of Case No.1686/2025 (State
                                    v. Surendra Pal Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 159 / 2024 under
                                    Sections 420, 409 I.P.C., Police Station Sirsakalar, District Jalaun, are
                                    hereby quashed.

                                    13. The present application is, accordingly, allowed.



                                                                                       (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Aditya Tripathi




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