Abdul Qadir and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2025NA528/25857/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashment application; compromise verification; Crime no. 87 of 2025, PS Swar, District Rampur; BNS sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 76; charge sheet 19.3.2025; cognizance/summoning order 27.6.2025; quashed qua Abdul Qadir, Saqib, Kaleem; reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692; Allahabad High Court; judge Saurabh Srivastava; decided 10.11.2025; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; entire proceeding of Case Crime no. 87 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Abdul Qadir and others) under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 76 of BNS, PS- Swar, District Rampur quashed only in respect of applicants Abdul Qadir, Saqib and Kaleem; parties may file copy of the order before the court concerned within three weeks.

Abdul Qadir and 2 Others vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceeding in Case Crime no. 87 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Abdul Qadir and others) under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 76 of BNS, PS- Swar, District Rampur, originated upon charge sheet dated 19.3.2025 and summoning/cognizance order dated 27.6.2025, can be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered between the parties.

¶¶10

Court's answer

Although opposite party no. 2 disputed the compromise, the signature on the compromise application was verified before this Court itself, opposite party no. 2 (present in person) confirming that the signature was made by herself; therefore there is hardly any occasion to dispute the verification made by the learned court concerned.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

In view of the facts and circumstances, and in light of the Apex Court judgments in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, the entire proceeding of Case Crime no. 87 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Abdul Qadir and others) under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 76 of BNS, PS- Swar, District Rampur is quashed, only in respect of the applicants Abdul Qadir, Saqib and Kaleem.

¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 25857 of 2025, decided November 10, 2025 — Compromise-based quashment. On the strength of a compromise verified on 26.9.2025 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur (report taken on record), and despite the objection of opposite party no. 2 — neutralised because she confirmed before the Court that the signature on the compromise application was hers — the entire proceeding in Case Crime no. 87 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Abdul Qadir and others), sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 76 of BNS, PS- Swar, District Rampur (charge sheet dated 19.3.2025; summoning/cognizance order dated 27.6.2025), was quashed ONLY in respect of the applicants Abdul Qadir, Saqib and Kaleem, relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692. Application allowed; parties directed to file copy of the order before the court concerned within three weeks.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25857 of 2025

¶3

Abdul Qadir And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Singh,	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Compromise verification report dated 26.9.2025 preferred on behalf of applicants is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for applicants, Mr. Shahabuddin, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. Mr. Shahabuddin, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 preferred vakalatnama which is taken on record.

¶10

Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding originated upon charge sheet dated 19.3.2025 as well as summoning/cognizance order dated 27.6.2025 passed in Crime no. 87 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Abdul Qadir and others) under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 76 of BNS, PS- Swar, District Rampur on the basis of compromise taken between the parties.

¶11

In compliance of earlier order dated 18.9.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and the same has been preferred today by learned counsel for applicants which is taken on record, wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified on dated 26.9.2025 in presence of both the parties.

¶12

Mr. Shahabuddin, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that opposite party no. 2 who is present today in person is having some objection over the compromise entered between the parties.

¶13

NA528 No. 25857 of 2025

¶14

¶15

Although, the compromise has been disputed by opposite party no. 2 but the signature which has been put forward over the compromise application has been verified before the court itself by opposite party no. 2 (in person) who submitted that the signature has been made by herself, hence there is hardly any occasions arises before this Court to dispute the verification which has been made by learned court concerned.

¶16

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and in the light of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692] , the entire proceeding of Case Crime no. 87 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Abdul Qadir and others) under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 76 of BNS, PS- Swar, District Rampur, are hereby quashed , only in respect of applicants namely Abdul Qadir, Saqib and Kaleem.

¶17

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed .

¶18

The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within three weeks from today.

¶19

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶20

November 10, 2025 Shaswat

¶21

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

Abdul Qadir and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Qadir and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Smt Neha and Another vs State of Up 3 Others

Arun Bhati vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Narayan vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaleem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

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