DR TAUSEEF AHMAD KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3671 of 2026

Dr Tauseef Ahmad Khan
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Manoj Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Irshad Ahmad, Umesh Chandra
                                Shukla

Court No. - 81
                    HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

     1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

     2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the
     parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court
     and compromise had taken place between them and the same
     has been filed along with the instant application. Earlier, this
     Court had directed the parties to appear before the Court below
     for verification of compromise. By the said order, the Court
     below was further directed to send a verification report.

     3. As per report, the parties had appeared before the trial Court,
     who were identified by their respective counsels and the
     compromise was verified by the trial Court on 25-09-2026.

     4. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the
     Court and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the
     applicant, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it
     pending.

     5. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for
     O.P. no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts.

     6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya
     Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5
     SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding
                                                         NA528 No. 3671 of 2026
                             2


on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs
are quoted herein below:-

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

    i) 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;

    ii) 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;

    iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences
    under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or
    the offences committed by public servants while working in
    that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
    compromise between the victim and the offender;

    iv) 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, on 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
                                                         NA528 No. 3671 of 2026
                             3


    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/delegate 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 paragraphs 29.6 and
    29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh
    (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a
    whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

    v) 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 impart 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 accused; 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 into a compromise etc."

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have
amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and
compromise between the parties has already been verified by
the trial Court, the present Application is liable to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed and the
entire proceedings of case crime no. 95 of 2025 under Sections
316(4) and 316(5) BNSS, P.S. Sambhal, district Sambhal are
                                                                 NA528 No. 3671 of 2026
                                                            4


                                          hereby quashed.



                                                                (Madan Pal Singh,J.)
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    pks




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