MANTU KHAN @ FURKAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41320 of 2025

Mantu Khan @ Furkan And Another
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Mohammad Waseem
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A.

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
18.05.2018 and cognizance/summoning order dated 15.10.2018 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Case No.7641 of 2018 (State Vs. Kishan
Maurya and others), arising out of Case Crime No.138 of 2018, under
Sections 323, 504, 325 IPC, P.S. Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, 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 19.01.2026 which has been appended
with supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court, the same is taken on
record. This fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned AGA.

4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned AGA 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 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
                                                                                              NA528 No. 41320 of 2025
                                                                     2

                                    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. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case,
                                    chargesheet dated 18.05.2018 and cognizance/summoning order dated
                                    15.10.2018 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.7641 of 2018
                                    (State Vs. Kishan Maurya and others), arising out of Case Crime No.138 of
                                    2018, under Sections 323, 504, 325 IPC, P.S. Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly,
                                    pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, are
                                    hereby quashed.

                                    8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

                                    9. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then
                                    in that event, he may seek recall of this order by way of filing recall
                                    application explaining the reasons.

                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Vivek Kr.
                                                                                          (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




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