Bhanu Pratap Singh Alias Beenu and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21063 of 2025

¶3

Bhanu Pratap Singh Alias Beenu And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Singh Sengar, Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ramendra Singh, Shakti Pratap Singh, G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.02.2007 as well as entire proceeding of Special Case No. 81 of 2006 (Shushlendra Kumar Versus Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Beenu and others), under Sections 395, 397 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Auraiya, District-Auraiya on the basis of compromise, pending in the Court of Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Auraiya.

¶10

The parties have settled the dispute through compromise dated 29.05.2025 and has been duly verified on 07.08.2025 by Special Judge, (D.A.A. Act), Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Auraiya.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of personal discord between the applicants and the opposite party No.2. It is also argued that the parties have willingly entered into a settlement and not under duress or threat or coercion and are not interested in pursuing the matter pending in the Court concerned and, therefore, the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 admits the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the impugned proceeding pending against the applicants, is quashed.

¶13

NA528 No. 21063 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶16

The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled.

¶17

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench Judgment in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012)10 SCC 303 , has held that "But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim."

¶18

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that "even in the non compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases."

¶19

Both the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending amongst them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the law as cited above, the present case is a good case for exercise of power by the Court to quash summoning order as well as entire proceedings.

¶20

The dispute appears to be purely civil in nature that has been mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer.

¶21

The present application for quashing filed under Section 528 BNSS comes within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019 dated 02.09.2025.

¶22

NA528 No. 21063 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

Considering the fact that the alleged dispute arises out of the personal discord, the entire proceedings of Special Case No. 81 of 2006 (Shushlendra Kumar Versus Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Beenu and others), under Sections 395, 397 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Auraiya, District-Auraiya, are hereby quashed.

¶25

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is, accordingly, allowed .

¶26

November 15, 2025 Shivani

¶27

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhanu Pratap Singh Alias Beenu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Pratap Singh Alias Beenu and 2 Others 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

Pramod Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Atul and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Munish Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Arya Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Sanjeev Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Angad and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others