JHURI @ JAGATPAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33874 of 2025

Jhuri @ Jagatpal And Another
                                                                .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                    .....Opposite
                                                                          Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Ravi Prakash
                                Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajitam Srivastav, G.A., Kamlesh Kumar
                                Ojha

Court No. - 19
                      HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicants,
Shri Ajitam Srivastav, learned Counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned
A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. It is submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have entered into
compromise and have verified the compromise before the learned trial court,
the verified compromise deed is on record.

3. This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing
the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6041 of 2017 (State Vs. Lallu @
Raju and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.273 of 2017, under Sections
147, 148, 323, 427, 452 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Hathgaon, District-
Fatehpur, and charge-sheet dated 17.12.2016, pending in the court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Fatehpur.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that opposite party no.
2, Smt. Suman Yadav lodged an FIR against the applicants and other named
co-accused with the allegation that on 24.10.2016 at about 06-06:30 p.m.,
the first informant's son Lavkush saw Rajesh and Pushpa were grappling
with each other near Ex-Pradhan Nabibaksh's Sugarcane field, thereafter, he
came to the village and told some persons about it, who paid no attention.
On 28.10.2016, Pushpa's husband Lallu @ Raju Paasi came to the village
and was told about the incident by some villagers, thereupon Lallu had
beaten his wife on 30.10.2016. A panchayat was held at Lallu's house and
instead of Rajesh the allegations were levelled upon Lavkush. On
                                                        NA528 No. 33874 of 2025
                                2


31.10.2016 at about 08-08:30 a.m. the applicants and other named co-
accused came to the house of the first informant, armed with weapons, and
damaged the property, committed maarpeet with lathi danda, fists and kicks.
Upon first informant's alarm Murtaja's wife Reshma came alongwith some
other persons and the police who saved her life.

5. Upon this information, FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427,
452 and 506 IPC and after investigation charge-sheet was filed in the
aforesaid sections before the competent court. The concerned court took
cognizance of the offence and summoned the applicants and other co-
accused persons. During the pendency of this application both the parties
have entered into compromise and stated that the dispute between them is
private in nature and they have amicably settled the dispute. In view of the
above, under the direction of this Court vide order dated 06.10.2025 both the
parties were directed to appear before the learned trial court for verification
of compromise. In compliance thereof, both the parties appeared before the
learned trial court and verified the compromise and the report dated
07.11.2025 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, District-
Fatehpur has been filed along with verified compromise in which it is stated
that both the parties had appeared before the court and had verified the
compromise.

6. In the present case, besides the applicants, there are other co-accused and
the compromise has been entered into only between the applicants and
opposite party no.2. In view of the above, learned A.G.A has submitted that
as all the parties of the case have not entered into compromise, therefore, the
proceeding cannot be quashed, in part, on the basis of compromise reached
between the applicants and opposite party no.2.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel
for opposite party no. 2 have submitted that the court has power under
Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash the proceeding of the case, in part, on the
basis of compromise entered into between the parties. In support thereof, the
applicants have drawn the attention of the court and relied on a decision
rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Khursheed and Another
Vs. State of U.P. 2023 O Supreme (All) 1644 and in application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. No.2924 of 2025 (Raj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P.) decided on
18.07.2025, Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:LKO:41412.
                                                            NA528 No. 33874 of 2025
                                   3


8. In above matters, also some of the parties of the case had settled their
dispute on the basis of compromise and in view of the law laid down
by Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of
Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I.
and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others
: (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC
118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another:
(2014) 6 SCC 466, the proceedings of the case were quashed so far as the
applicants of the case were concerned.

9. In Khursheed and Another (Supra), the question was whether charge-
sheet and/ or criminal proceedings based upon the compromise can be
quashed in part. In other words, whether the charge-sheet and/ or criminal
proceedings based upon the compromise can be quashed qua the accused -
applicant. In the above matter, admittedly, all the accused had not entered
into the compromise and the application was filed for quashing the charge-
sheet and/ or criminal proceedings qua the applicants based upon the
compromise. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted here in below:.

"7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the various pronouncements including
the judgments passed in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012, 10 SCC
303], Narindra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai
Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi
Narayan, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1799 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 observed as under:-

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the
point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be
exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute
amongst themselves:

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society,

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special
statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
                                                                NA528 No. 33874 of 2025
                                      4

servants while working in that Capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category
of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the
society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings
for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious
impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of
the Code, off the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst
themselves. However, the High Court would not rest, its decision merely because there
is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation
of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC.
For this purpose it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury
sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-
sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible
when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in
paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh should be read
Page 9 of 13 harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated
hereinabove;

15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature
and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender the High Court is required
to consider the antecedents of the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the
accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the
complainant to enter compromise, etc.

7.5 A two Judge Bench of the Apex Court again in Ramgopal vs. State of M.P. (2022)
14 SCC 531 has held as follows:-

"19.... Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be
exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:

19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of society;

19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;

19.3. Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; and

19.4. Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the
                                                           NA528 No. 33874 of 2025
                                   5

purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

8. In nutshell, the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC
can quash the charge-sheet and/or criminal proceeding even if the offence is
non-compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC and the said power can be
exercised by the High Court in the light of the observations made in the
judgments referred above which includes quashing of criminal proceeding
on the basis of compromise.

9.2 In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
quashed the FIR qua the petitioner based upon the compromise. As per the
observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the High Court while
exercising the power of quashing under Section 482 CrPC, is required to
consider as to whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit
the prosecution to continue and whether the chances of conviction are bleak
and no useful purpose is likely to be served."

10. In view of the above, the court held that FIR/ charge-sheet/ criminal
proceeding can be quashed in part, qua the accused/ applicant in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The above matter also related to the
offence of maarpeet, hurling abuse and giving threat to the first informant
and in view of the above legal position, the application was allowed and the
proceedings of the case were quashed on the basis of compromise qua the
applicants.

11. In the present case also the dispute is with regard to committing
maarpeet and giving threat to the first informant and therefore, looking into
the contents of the FIR, accusations against the applicants, observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as quoted above, this Court is of the considered
view that chances of conviction of applicants are extremely bleak and as the
victim and applicants have settled their dispute amicably out of the court and
have entered into compromise and have already verified the same before the
learned trial court, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping
the proceedings pending against the applicants of this application.

12. Accordingly, for the discussions made above, the present application is
allowed and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6041 of 2017 (State
Vs. Lallu @ Raju and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.273 of 2017,
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 452 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-
Hathgaon, District- Fatehpur, and charge-sheet dated 17.12.2016, are hereby
                                                                                       NA528 No. 33874 of 2025
                                                                 6


                                    quashed, against the applicants No.1 and 2, to wit, Jhuri @ Jagatpal and
                                    Nan-Bachcha @ Shiv Baran, only.

                                    January 29, 2026
                                    AdityaG
                                                                                         (Sanjiv Kumar,J.)




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