IKRAAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42448 of 2025

Ikraar And Another
                                                                 .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                 :   Subhash Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   Sandeep Kumar Yadav, G.A.

Court No. - 80
                     HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Certified copy of compromise verification report dated 14.11.2025 has
been placed before the Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1.

3. Present application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the
applicants to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 458 of 2025 (State Vs.
Julfikar & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 326 of 2025, under sections
70(1), 127(2), 351(3) Β.Ν.S., P.S. Tanda, District Rampur, pending in the
court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and the cognizance order dated
18.09.2025 as well as chargesheet no.266/2025 dated 30.07.2025.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that a compromise
has taken place between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2/victim
on 14.11.2025, and the same has been verified by the learned trial court on
14.11.2025 in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 10.11.2025. It
is further submitted that a short counter affidavit has been filed by the
victim, wherein she has admitted that a compromise has taken place between
her and the applicants. In paragraph no. 7 of the short counter affidavit, it is
mentioned by the victim that she does not want to prosecute the applicants in
the present case and that she has decided to withdraw the prosecution against
the applicants. Lastly, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants
that the proceedings against the applicants be quashed in view of the
compromise between the parties, which has been duly verified by the learned
trial court on 14.11.2025.

5. It is further contended that in view of the said compromise, the pending
proceedings before the trial court be quashed in the light of the Judgments of
                                                             NA528 No. 42448 of 2025
                                   2

Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4)
SCC 675, and that of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed
reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs.
State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State
of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs.
State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the
applicants and opposite party no.2/ victim have settled their differences
through compromise and as such opposite party no.2/ victim does not wish
to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2/victim
is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the
compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is
allowed to go on.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/ victim and
learned A.G.A. for the State have no objection to the above submissions.

8. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

9. Undoubtedly, the compromise has also taken place between the parties,
which has also been verified by the learned Trial Court vide order dated
14.11.2025.

10. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case
the dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the
parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC
there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of
Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent powers in view of the recorded
settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh
(supra) has held in para-61 that;

     "the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR
     or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and
     different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the
     offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
     plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
     with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of
     justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases
     power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
     exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would
     depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can
     be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court
                                                              NA528 No. 42448 of 2025
                                   3

     must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
     serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
     dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's
     family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not
     private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any
     compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences
     under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
     committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot
     provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
     offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
     dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of
     quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
     mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
     arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
     where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties
     have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court
     may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
     between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote
     and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great
     oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
     by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement
     and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must
     consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
     to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
     proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
     settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and
     whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case
     is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
     affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
     the criminal proceeding."

11. In the judgment of Ram Gopal and Another vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012), decided on 29.9.2021,
reported in (2022) 118 ACC 318, the Supreme Court once again reiterated
that even if the offences are non-compoundable, the High Court can quash
the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC,
having regard to the nature of the offences and the fact that parties have
amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the
nullification of criminal proceeding. While so holding, it has been pointed
out that the High Court can indisputably evaluate the consequential effects
of the offences beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a
                                                       NA528 No. 42448 of 2025
                               4


pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does
not tinker with or paralyse the very object of the administration of criminal
justice system. In para 14 of the said judgment, the principles have been
summarized as follows: -

     "14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which
     involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and
     moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public
     policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups
     only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at
     large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process
     would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may
     also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or
     professional offenders, who can secure a 'settlement' through
     duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It
     is well said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."

12. The Supreme Court in another judgment of Madhukar and Others vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal)
No. 7212 of 2025, alongwith Prabhakar vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of 2025, quashed
the proceedings of Case Crime No.302 of 2023, dated 20.11.2023, under
Sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 as well as quashed the proceedings of Case Crime No.304 of
2023, dated 21.11.2023, under Sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509 and 506
IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties. Paragraph nos.6, 7 and
8 of the said judgment are reproduced herein:-

     "6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376
     IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily,
     quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of
     settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be
     permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section
     482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a
     rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of
     each case.

     7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual
     situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including
                                                              NA528 No. 42448 of 2025
                                   5


     Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR
     lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a
     certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second
     FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the
     complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her
     desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now
     married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the
     criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability.
     Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently
     maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she
     does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end.
     The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and
     arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the
     continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose.
     It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the
     complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a
     productive outcome.

     8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and
     circumstances of this case, and taking into account the
     categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the
     settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the
     criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would
     only amount to abuse of process."

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment of Kapil Gupta vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Another), reported in (2022) 15 SCC 44,
quashed the proceedings under Section 376 IPC on the basis of compromise
between the parties and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
victim was a young lady of 23 years and she would be faced with agony of
undergoing the trial. The victim was not supporting the prosecution
case even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing
else than an acquittal. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be
amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already
overburdened criminal courts. The relevant paragraphs of the Kapil Gupta
(supra) are reproduced hereunder:-

     "6. It further appears that subsequently, in the case arising out of Section
     376 of the IPC, that is, FIR No.569 of 2020, the matter was amicably
                                                           NA528 No. 42448 of 2025
                               6

settled and therefore, the petition for quashing the proceedings under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. came to be filed. By the impugned order, the
High Court has dismissed the said petition.

13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the
Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and
serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from
examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such
an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved
would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court
has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between
the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may
improve their mutual relationship.

14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to
what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an
application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led
and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should
be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such
an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial,
the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power.

15. The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the
present case. Respondent No.2 is a young lady of 23 years. She feels that
going through trial in one case, where she is a complainant and in the
other case, wherein she is the accused would rob the prime of her youth.
She feels that if she is made to face the trial rather than getting any relief,
she would be faced with agony of undergoing the trial.

16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been filed, the
charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial has not yet
commenced. It is further to be noted that since the respondent No.2
herself is not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is
permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the
request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one
more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.

17. In that view of the matter, we find that though in a heinous or serious
crime like rape, the Court should not normally exercise the powers of
quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case and in order to give succour to Respondent No. 2 so that she
is saved from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one as a victim
and one as an accused, we find that this is a fit case wherein the
extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised to quash the criminal
                                                           NA528 No. 42448 of 2025
                                 7

     proceedings.

     18. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and proceedings in
     the criminal cases arising out of following FIRs are quashed and set
     aside:

           1. FIR No.569/2020 registered at Police Station, Mehrauli,
           New Delhi (Rape)
           2. FIR No.824/2020, registered at Police Station, Mehrauli,
           New Delhi (Extortion)"

14. I have gone through the allegations/charges against the accused/s and I
am of the opinion that these are not of such nature as would fall within the
excepted class of cases where quashing the proceeding and permitting the
accused to go unpunished, would have any detrimental effect on the society
at large. As the parties have already settled their dispute, there is no
likelihood of conviction of the applicants. In fact, the charges against the
applicants stand impliedly withdrawn and abandoned, therefore, in order to
secure ends of justice, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

15. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into
compromise and appear to have settled their real disputes amicably, which
has also been verified by the Court below, copy of which report is on record.
Thus, it further appears that the opposite party no. 2/victim, who would be
the key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, have declared their
unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is
apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to
continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned trial court.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise
entered into between the parties and taking all these factors into
consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted
and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303,
Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State
of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat
(supra), Madhukar (supra) and Kapil Gupta (supra), the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

17. In view of the aforesaid, entire proceeding of Case No. 458 of 2025
                                                                                         NA528 No. 42448 of 2025
                                                                   8


                                    (State Vs. Julfikar & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 326 of 2025,
                                    under sections 70(1), 127(2), 351(3) Β.Ν.S., P.S. Tanda, District Rampur,
                                    pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and the
                                    cognizance order dated 18.09.2025 as well as chargesheet no.266/2025 dated
                                    30.07.2025, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

                                    18. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.

                                                                                        (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)


                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Radhika




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad