LAXMI KANT MISHRA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8361 of 2026

Laxmi Kant Mishra And 3 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Kamlesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A., O.P. Tiwari

Court No. - 77
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 as well as learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
25.09.2013 and cognizance/summoning order dated 12.03.2014 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.127 of 2014 (State Vs.
Laxmi Kant Misra and others), arising out of Case Crime No.287 of 2013,
under Sections 323, 427, 351, 506 IPC, P.S. George Town, District
Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Room No.9, Allahabad, 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 18.03.2026 which has been appended
with this petition, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by
learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties 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
                                                                                              NA528 No. 8361 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                    and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
                                    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 25.09.2013 and cognizance/summoning order dated
                                    12.03.2014 along with entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.127
                                    of 2014 (State Vs. Laxmi Kant Misra and others), arising out of Case Crime
                                    No.287 of 2013, under Sections 323, 427, 351, 506 IPC, P.S. George Town,
                                    District Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
                                    Magistrate, Room No.9, Allahabad, are hereby quashed.

                                    8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

                                    9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting
                                    parties. 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.

                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Vivek Kr.
                                                                                         (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




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