ISHRAT ALI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36796 of 2025

Ishrat Ali And 3 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                      :   Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                 :   G.A., Vijendra Pal

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 17.04.2025.

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 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
                                                   NA528 No. 36796 of 2025
                           2

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 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
                                                                                             NA528 No. 36796 of 2025
                                                                     3

                                         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 Criminal Case No. 810 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime
                                    No.655 of 2024, under Sections 74, 76, 115 (2) and 351 (2) B.N.S, Police
                                    Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly, is hereby quashed.
                                    September 17, 2026
                                    Akbar
                                                                                            (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad