Allowed¶19

Syed Junaid Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 May 2025NA528/13609/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

528 BNSS quashing on compromise; Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC; Case Crime No. 29 of 2023, P.S. Quila, Bareilly; Case No. 1175 of 2024 (State vs. Syed Junaid Ali); charge sheet dated 09.02.2023; cognizance/summoning order dated 07.11.2024; compromise dated 04.04.2025 verified by trial court on 10.07.2025; Narindra Singh; Parbatbhai Aahir; Gian Singh; Laxmi Narayanan; Shaifullah ACC; non-compoundable offences settled; Deepak Verma, J.; September 8, 2025.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. was allowed and the proceedings of Case No. 1175 of 2024 (State vs. Syed Junaid Ali) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, along with the charge sheet dated 09.02.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.11.2024, were quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties. ¶19

Syed Junaid Ali vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 09.02.2023, the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.11.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 1175 of 2024 (State vs. Syed Junaid Ali) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC (Case Crime No. 29 of 2023, P.S. Quila, Bareilly) should be quashed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties on 04.04.2025 and verified by the trial court.

¶7

Court's answer

In view of the verified amicable settlement between the parties and the submissions made, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the said criminal case.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 1175 of 2024 (State vs. Syed Junaid Ali) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2023, Police Station Quila, District Bareilly, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly, stand quashed.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 09.02.2023, the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.11.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 1175 of 2024 (State vs. Syed Junaid Ali) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2023, Police Station Quila, District Bareilly, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly. Quashing was granted because the parties had amicably settled their dispute through a compromise dated 04.04.2025; this Court had referred the verification of the parties and compromise to the trial court by order dated 07.05.2025, and the trial court verified the same on 10.07.2025. Opposite party no. 2 raised no objection to quashing, and the learned AGA conceded there was no reason to proceed. Reliance was placed on Narindra Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, and the Allahabad High Court decision in Shaifullah [2013 (83) ACC 278], for the proposition that compromise is permissible even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings and quashed them.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13609 of 2025

¶2

Syed Junaid Ali .....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajesh Kumar Verma, G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 72

¶4

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 09.02.2023; cognizance/summoning order dated 07.11.2024 as well as entire proceedings of case no.1175 of 2024 (State Vs. Syed Junaid Ali) Under Sections, 323, 504, 506 IPC, arising out of case crime no. 29 of 2023, Police StationQuila, District Bareilly, pending in the court learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly, in pursuance of compromise taken place between the parties on 04.04.2025.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it is no injury case and the 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 07.05.2025 sent the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 10.07.2025 verified the

¶9

NA528 No. 13609 of 2025

¶10

¶11

parties as well as compromise application. 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.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶13

Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

¶14

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 non-compoundable 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

NA528 No. 13609 of 2025

¶17

¶18

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.1175 of 2024 (State Vs. Syed Junaid Ali) Under Sections, 323, 504, 506 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2023, Police Station-Quila, District Bareilly, pending in the court learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly, is hereby quashed.

¶19

This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed .

¶20

September 8, 2025

¶21

Meenu Singh

¶22

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶23

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

Syed Junaid Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Junaid Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shailendra Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Keshari Nandan Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhay Gupta and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mainudin vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhunnan vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhay Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another