SAKHAWATversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 43205 of 2025

Sakhawat
                                                                     .....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 22.01.2026.

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 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:
                                                                NA528 No. 43205 of 2025
                                     2


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 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
                                                                                               NA528 No. 43205 of 2025
                                                                      3


                                    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 Case no. 222 of 2021 (State Vs. Sakhawat) arising out of
                                    Case Crime no. 68 of 2016, under sections 420, 452, 307,323, 504, 506
                                    IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly, is hereby quashed.
                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Akbar

                                                                                              (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




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