Mohd. Rashid and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mohd. Rashid and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing, only in respect of the applicants, of (i) the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 39927 of 2024 (State vs. Rashid and another) arising out of Case Crime no. 93 of 2024 under sections 308, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Najibabad, District Bijnor, (ii) the Investigating Officer's charge sheet dated 24.6.2024, and (iii) the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.10.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor — effected in light of the compromise verified on 3.11.2025; parties to file copy of the order within three weeks; opposite party no. 2 left free to file a recall application if aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 39927 of 2024 (State vs. Rashid and another) arising out of Case Crime no. 93 of 2024 under sections 308, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Najibabad, District Bijnor — including the Investigating Officer's charge sheet dated 24.6.2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.10.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor — should be quashed in view of the compromise already occurred between the parties.

Court's answer

With the parties having amicably settled their dispute, the compromise confirmed and admitted (and verified on 3.11.2025) and no objection from the learned AGA, the court held that the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 39927 of 2024 (State vs. Rashid and another) arising out of Case Crime no. 93 of 2024 under sections 308, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Najibabad, District Bijnor is quashed — only in respect of the applicants herein.

Ratio / Principle

The present application stands allowed.

Key takeaways

The parties were directed to file the copy of this order before the court concerned within three weeks from today.obiter¶19
If opposite party no. 2 feels duped or betrayed, he may file a recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HC (Single judge: Saurabh Srivastava, Court No. 77; decision 01.12.2025): Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 25528/2025 by Mohd. Rashid and another — the proceeding of Criminal Case no. 39927 of 2024 (State vs. Rashid and another) arising out of Case Crime no. 93 of 2024 (ss. 308, 504, 506 IPC, PS Najibabad, dist. Bijnor), the Investigating Officer's charge-sheet dated 24.6.2024, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.10.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor were quashed ONLY in respect of the applicants, upon confirmed and court-verified compromise between the parties (verified 3.11.2025 by ACJ(JD)/JM Court No. 8, Bijnor pursuant to a coordinate-Bench order dated 16.9.2025; AGA raised no objection). Rationale drawn from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, para 58 (High Court may quash criminal proceedings notwithstanding non-compoundability where continuation is futile and the ends of justice demand closure) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692 (civil-nature disputes: 'special facts'/'special features' justify quashing to encourage genuine settlement). Safeguards: parties to file copy of order before the court concerned within three weeks; opposite party no. 2 permitted a recall application if he feels duped or betrayed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25528 of 2025

Mohd. Rashid And Another

.....Applicant(s)

		Versus
State of U.P. and Another				.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Amar Singh	Jeet Singh,	Bhuvnesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 77

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of applicants is taken on record.

Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.

Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 39927 of 2024 (State vs. Rashid and another) arising out of Case Crime no. 93 of 2024 under sections 308, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Najibabad, District Bijnor in the light of compromise already occurred between both the parties as well as quash the charge sheet dated 24.6.2024 submitted by Investigating Officer in aforementioned case and to quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.10.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor.

In compliance of earlier order dated 16.9.2025 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 8, Bijnor and the same has been preferred today by learned counsel for applicants by way of supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified on dated 3.11.2025 in presence of both the parties.

NA528 No. 25528 of 2025

2

Learned AGA for the State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicant.

From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties and it has been submitted that there would be no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.

A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has observed in para 58 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 and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.

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.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 39927 of 2024 (State vs. Rashid and another) arising out of Case Crime no. 93 of 2024 under sections 308, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Najibabad, District Bijnor, are hereby quashed , only in respect of applicants herein.

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed .

The parties may file the copy of this order before the court

NA528 No. 25528 of 2025

3

concerned within three weeks from today.

If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

December 1, 2025

Shaswat

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