SIRAJUDDIN AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32203 of 2026

Sirajuddin And 4 Others
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :      Saurabh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :      G.A., Pankaj Kumar Mishra

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

1. Heard Sri Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for applicants and learned
counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4 as well as learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash entire proceedings of
Case No.310 of 2026 (State Vs. Sirajudding and others), arising out of
Case Crime No.114 of 2026, under Sections 333, 192(2), 115(2), 351(3),
110, 352 BNS, P.S. Swar, District Rampur, pending before learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Rampur, 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 17.08.2026 which has been
appended with present application, this fact has also been ascertained and
seconded by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

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
                                                                                         NA528 No. 32203 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.

                                    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, Case No.310 of 2026 (State Vs. Sirajudding and others), arising out
                                    of Case Crime No.114 of 2026, under Sections 333, 192(2), 115(2),
                                    351(3), 110, 352 BNS, P.S. Swar, District Rampur, pending before
                                    learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Rampur, are hereby
                                    quashed.

                                    9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.



                                                                                      (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
                                    September 21, 2026
                                    Vivek Kr.




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