Jahid and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jahid and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. allowed; cognizance order dated 05.10.2015 and entire proceedings of Case No. 5854 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 378 of 2015, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bulandshahr, quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance order dated 05.10.2015 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 5854 of 2015 (arising out of Case Crime No. 378 of 2015 under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC) should be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the applicants and opposite party no.2.

Court's answer

In view of the facts, circumstances and submissions, and the settlement between the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings of Case No. 5854 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 378 of 2015 under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bulandshahr, are quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous (Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S.) — quashing of proceedings on compromise — applicants and opposite party no.2 amicably settled their private/civil dispute vide Compromise Deed dated 06.12.2023; matter remitted by High Court on 26.05.2025 and compromise verified by trial court on 03.07.2025; offences under Ss. 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali City, District Bulandshahr; relying on Narindra Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688 and Shaifullah v. State of U.P. 2013 (83) ACC 278, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings and quashed the proceedings of Case No. 5854 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 378 of 2015 along with the cognizance order dated 05.10.2015; application allowed (Deepak Verma, J.; order date 11.8.2025).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135342

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 964 of 2025

Applicant :- Jahid And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Srivastava,Reena Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 05.10.2015 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 5854 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 378 of 2015 under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of I. P.C., Police Station- Kotwali City, District Bulandshahr in pursuance of the Compromise Deed dated 06.12.2023 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that injuries are simple in nature and applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this 482 application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.05.2025 sent the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 03.07.2025 verified the parties as well as compromise application, thereafter a letter has been transmitted to this Court on 09.07.2025 by the concerned court. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 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.

Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their

dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and noncompoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 5854 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 378 of 2015 under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of I. P.C., Police Station- Kotwali City, District Bulandshahr, is hereby quashed.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed .

Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Meenu Singh

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad