MOHD REHAN @ REHAN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28052 of 2026

Mohd Rehan @ Rehan And 2 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Mohd.Sartaz Ahmad Siddiqui, Riyaz
                                Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mohd Arif, G.A., Mumtaz Ahmad
                                Siddiqui

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material on
record.

3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for
quashing of impugned cognizance/ summoning order dated 29.06.2026,
charge sheet dated 26.03.2026, as well as entire proceeding of Computer
Case No. 37472 of 2026 (State Vs. Rehan), arising out of Crime No. 22 of
2026, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 352 BNS and Section 3/25,
9(1)(a)b(1)/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Kundarki, District Moradabad,
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 6, Moradabad, so far as it relates to the applicant No. 1-Mohd.
Rehan @ Rehan. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the
impugned order dated 08.05.2026 passed by Juvenile Justice Board,
Moradabad in Case No. 67 of 2026, whereby the Juvenile Justice Board
has taken cognizance on the charge sheet submitted against the applicant
No. 2 in the aforesaid crime.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants vide
order dated 16.07.2026 this Court has directed both the parties to appear
before the court concerned for verification of compromise arrived at
between the parties. In pursuance thereof the court concerned vide its
order dated 19.08.2026 and 27.08.2026 hasverified the compromise,
copies of which orders have been annexed in the supplementary affidavit
filed today. He further submits that the FIR had come to be lodged by the
opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings
between the parties. With passage of time they have been able to resolve
their differences and have settled their dispute amicably in writing, which
                                                      NA528 No. 28052 of 2026
                               2


has also been verified by the court concerned. They realise that there was
no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence
has been committed by the applicants.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A.
for the State does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by
learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents
relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection,
if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

6. It is contended that in view of the said compromise, the pending
proceedings before the court below be quashed in the light of the
Judgments of Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and
others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
2012(10) SCC 303.

7. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case
the dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between
the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320
IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings
of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent powers in view of the
recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of
Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;

     "the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
     proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
     jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
     criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section
     320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
     statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the
     guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of
     justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In
     what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or
     complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and
     victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
     circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.
     However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must
     have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
     Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences
     like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed
     even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have
     settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and
     have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
     between the victim and offender in relation to the offences
     under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
     offences committed by public servants while working in that
     capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
     criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal
                                                       NA528 No. 28052 of 2026
                                3


     cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil
     favour 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. In other words, the High Court must consider
     whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
     to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the
     criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of
     law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
     wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
     appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the
     answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High
     Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
     proceeding."

8. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has
placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra
Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and
Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641
and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled
their differences through compromise and as such opposite party no.2
does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite
party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in
view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the
prosecution is allowed to go on.

9. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into
compromise and appear to have settled their real disputes amicably,
which has also been verified by the Court below, copy of which report is
on record. Thus, it further appears that the opposite party no.2, who would
be the key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared
his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it
is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed
to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court
below.

10. The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of
                                                       NA528 No. 28052 of 2026
                               4


the present case and other similar cases present where, though allegations
made in the FIR do contain ingredients of an offence. However, in view
such settlement having been reached, the chances of conviction are not
only bleak but if such trials are allowed to continue along with all other
trials that lie piled up in practically all criminal courts in the state, the
continuance of trials in cases such as the instant case may only work to
the huge disadvantage of other cases where litigants are crying for justice.

11. In normal circumstances, the court would be loathe to accept some of
such compromise arrangements. Sadly, even that course does not
commend itself to the court in view of the high pendency of criminal
cases and the high propensity to lie and state falsehood that appears to be
otherwise rampant in the society - where desire to take revenge appears to
sometime over shadow the pure pursuit of justice; where winning a legal
battle matters more than doing the right thing; where teaching a lesson to
ones adversary often appears to be the only purpose of instituting a
criminal proceeding.

12. Thus, looking at the prevalent tendencies in the society, a more
pragmatic, and less technical approach commends to the court - to let
some criminal prosecutions such as the present case be dropped, for the
sake of more effective, efficient and proper trial in other cases where the
litigants appear to be serious about their rights and more consistent in
their approach.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the
compromise entered into between the parties and taking all these factors
into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be
accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10)
SCC 303, Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra
Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State
of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby
quashed.

14. The present application thus may be allowed, subject however to
payment of cost to be deposited by the parties before the High Court
Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks
from today. Such cost has to be imposed to let the parties (in this case) in
particular and the society in general know that the courts cannot remain a
mute spectator to unscrupulous and errant behaviour by its members. A
society that will allow its members to misuse its courts, will ultimately
suffer and pay a huge cost. Litigants, both genuine and bogus, will always
continue to stand in the same queue. The courts have no mechanism to
pre-identify and distinguish between the genuine and the bogus litigant.
That becomes known only after hearing is concluded in a case. Hearing
requires time. In fact, even if the courts were to take punitive action
                                                                                            NA528 No. 28052 of 2026
                                                                    5


                                    against a bogus litigant, then, being bound by rules of procedure and
                                    fairness, such cases would require more time to be devoted to them than a
                                    case of two genuine litigants.

                                    15. In such circumstances, though no useful purpose would be served in
                                    allowing the prosecution to continue any further, however, no firm
                                    conclusion may be reached, at this stage, as to complete falsity of the
                                    allegations made against the applicants. The present application filed
                                    under Section 528 BNSS stands allowed, subject however to payment of
                                    cost Rs. 4,000/- (2,000 on each party) to be deposited before the High
                                    Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three
                                    weeks from today.

                                    16. The Legal Services Committee exists and works for the benefit of
                                    those litigants for whom court procedures are difficult to afford. It
                                    provides a crucial and essential service to the society itself. It thus appears
                                    proper to direct payment of the amount of cost to the Legal Services
                                    Committee, as a reminder and warning to the society and its members to
                                    introspect and reflect at their actions and deeds and also at the
                                    consequences that follow.


                                                                                   (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Mustaqeem.




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad