SHANI YADAV AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23054 of 2026

Shani Yadav And 4 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                       :    Saurabh Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                  :    G.A.

Court No. - 79
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for State.

2. The present application has been filed for seeking quashing of the entire
proceedings of ST No.22 of 2023 (State vs. Shani Yadav) and ST No.114 of
2022 (State vs. Javed and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.64 of 2022,
under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 120B, 34 IPC, P.S. Mandi
Dhanaura, District- Amroha, pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Amroha, including charge-sheet dated 10.06.2022 and
cognizance/summoning 04.08.2022.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that both the
parties have already entered into compromise, which was also preferred
before learned court concerned and while adjudicating the same, learned
court concerned rejected the compromise vide impugned order dated
07.05.2026 on the ground that the offences in which the applicants have
been implicated are non-compoundable in nature. Learned counsel for
applicants relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in
the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 to submit
that if the offence is non-compoundable and the parties have amicably
settled their dispute, the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed on the
basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The relevant
paragraph of said is being quoted herein below:-

     "54. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
     regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and the victim
     has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it
                                                        NA528 No. 23054 of 2026
                                2


     does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings
     will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that
     the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is
     restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding
     factor..."

4. On the other hand, learned AGA did not dispute the said fact that both the
parties have already amicably settled their dispute and now opposite parties
does not want to prosecute the applicants.

5. The argument raised by learned counsel for applicants seems to be
justified, since in catena of the judgments, Hon'ble the Apex Court has
observed that if the offence is non-compoundable which is having no serious
impact on society then there would be no harm and error if the proceedings
may be quashed in light of the compromise entered into between the parties.
In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC 37],
Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed as under:-

     "5. In light of the amicable settlement and the complainant's
     unequivocal consent, as evidenced by the Interlocutory
     Application, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the present
     M.A. While the offense under Section 326 IPC is non-
     compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure
     Code, 1973, the exceptional circumstances of this case, including
     the voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the exercise
     of this Court's inherent powers to give effect to the compromise."

6. Considering the above rival submissions as well as material available on
record, this Court finds that once the essence of the compromise entered by
both the parties has already been verified by them, no cause of action
survives for continuance of the proceedings in which the applicants have
been implicated being Case Crime No.64 of 2022, at P.S. Mandi Dhanaura,
District- Amroha.

7. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the
entire proceedings of ST No.22 of 2023 (State vs. Shani Yadav) and ST
No.114 of 2022 (State vs. Javed and Others) arising out of Case Crime
No.64 of 2022, under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 120B, 34
IPC, P.S. Mandi Dhanaura, District- Amroha, pending in the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, including charge-sheet dated 10.06.2022 and
                                                                                              NA528 No. 23054 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    cognizance/summoning 04.08.2022, are hereby set aside.

                                    8. The instant application stands allowed accordingly.

                                    9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the learned counsel
                                    for applicant and learned AGA. If at all, informant/opposite party no.2 feels
                                    that he/she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he/she may file
                                    recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Saif
                                                                                          (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad