Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SOVARAN SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The High Court quashed the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings on account of the parties' settlement through mediation.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 10‑10‑2008, the cognizance and summoning order dated 04‑11‑2008, and the entire criminal proceedings (Case No. 7792 of 2020) relating to offences under Sections 323, 324 and 504 IPC. Both parties jointly informed the court that they had already reached a settlement through mediation, which was recorded in an order dated 10‑03‑2026 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. Relying on this settlement, the High Court held that the pending criminal proceedings could be set aside. Consequently, the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the whole case were quashed, and the application was allowed. The court further directed that if the opposite party feels aggrieved, they may file a recall application.

Issues considered

  • Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 324 and 504 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a settlement reached through mediation.
  • Whether the charge‑sheet and cognizance/summoning order may be set aside after a mediated settlement under Section 528 CrPC.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • mediation
  • quash of criminal proceedings
  • Section 528 CrPC
  • IPC Sections 323, 324, 504
  • settlement
  • criminal law

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38284 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Dileep    Kumar              Shukla,     Shikhar
                                Neelkanth
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Kesh

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

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State and Sri Vipin
Kumar Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Kesh, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated
10.10.2008, cognizance/summoning order dated 04.11.2008 and the entire
proceedings of Case No.7792 of 2020 (State vs. Sovaran and others) arising
out of NCR No.166 of 2008 (subsequently Crime No.687 of 2008), under
sections 323, 324, 504 IPC, P.S. Highway, District- Mathura, pending in the
court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Mathura.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for both the parties jointly submitted
that parties, i.e., (applicants as well as wife of informant, i.e., opposite party
no.2, since the informant has been expired) have already been entered into a
mediation through application dated 10.03.2026, which has been finally
settled between them and the same has been reflected through order dated
10.03.2026 (after lunch) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mathura, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned AGA.

4. Considering the above order dated 10.03.2026, through which mediation
has been settled between the parties, the charge-sheet dated 10.10.2008,
cognizance/summoning order dated 04.11.2008 and the entire proceedings of
Case No.7792 of 2020 (State vs. Sovaran and others) arising out of NCR
No.166 of 2008 (subsequently Crime No.687 of 2008), under sections 323,
324, 504 IPC, P.S. Highway, District- Mathura, pending in the court of
                                                                                              NA528 No. 38284 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Mathura, are hereby
                                    quashed.

                                    5. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

                                    6. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting
                                    parties. If at all, informant/opposite party no.2 feels that he/she has been
                                    duped or betrayed, then in that event, he/she may file recall application
                                    explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Saif
                                                                                       (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.