MOHD. YASEEN AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30609 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)            :   Humaira Falak, Ramajan Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :   G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash cognizance/summoning
order dated 03.02.2026 along with entire criminal proceedings of Misc. Case
No.67 of 2025, Case No.485 of 2026 (State Vs. Mohd. Yaseen and others),
arising out of Case Crime No.138 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 191(2),
115(2), 351(2), 352 BNS, P.S. Deorania, District Bareilly, pending in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Baherhi, Bareilly, on the basis of
compromise.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified
by learned court concerned on dated 07.08.2026 which has been appended
with this application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by
learned AGA.

4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and
as such, there would be no harm and error if the proceedings may be
quashed in light of the compromise.

5. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 54 of the said
judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has
been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it 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
                                                                                              NA528 No. 30609 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                    an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
                                    guiding factor.

                                    6. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
                                    Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692], Hon'ble the Apex Court has
                                    also observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial,
                                    family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature"
                                    and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of
                                    disputes between the parties.

                                    7. In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC
                                    37], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed hat 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. Relevant paragraph of the
                                    said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:-

                                    "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."

                                    8. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
                                    case, cognizance/summoning order dated 03.02.2026 along with entire
                                    criminal proceedings of Misc. Case No.67 of 2025, Case No.485 of 2026
                                    (State Vs. Mohd. Yaseen and others), arising out of Case Crime No.138 of
                                    2025, under Sections 318(4), 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 BNS, P.S.
                                    Deorania, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Judicial
                                    Magistrate, Baherhi, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

                                    9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

                                    September 14, 2026
                                    Vivek Kr.
                                                                                         (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad