WASI AHMAD AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51887 of 2025

Wasi Ahmad And 5 Others
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Mohd Rehan Ansari, Pradeep Kumar,
                                Shama Firdaus
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandresh Kumar Chaurasiya, G.A.

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 19.05.2026.

     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:-
                                                                NA528 No. 51887 of 2025
                                     2


"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 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
                                                                                               NA528 No. 51887 of 2025
                                                                        3


                                    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 Case no. 3084 of 2018 (State Vs. Wasi
                                          Ahmad and another) arising out of Case Crime no. 0064 of
                                          2018, under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station
                                          Baradari, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Addl.
                                          Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Bareilly are hereby quashed.



                                                                                              (Madan Pal Singh,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Gss




Digitally signed by :-
GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad