Partly allowed

Achal Gangwar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2025NA528/39278/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash charge sheet and summoning order in a POCSO/BNS case where the parties compromised but the trial court rejected the compromise application as non-compoundable. Court set aside the rejection, directed a fresh verified compromise with a compliance report, and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Order rejecting compromise application dated 16.04.2025 set aside; fresh compromise to be filed and verified by trial court with compliance report; no coercive action against applicant till next date.

Achal Gangwar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39278 of 2025

Achal Gangwar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ram Surat Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 78

¶10

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶11

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and 3 as well as short counter affidavit in the Court today is taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and 3 and perused the records.

¶13

This application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing charge sheet dated 27.09.2024 along with cognizable/summoning order dated 12.02.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Session Case No. 224 of 2025 (State vs. Achal Gangwar) arising out of Case Crime No. 298 of 2024, under Sections 74, 351(2), 352 B.N.S. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Katra, District- Shahjahanpur pending before the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), court no. 42, Shahjahanpur and also set aside the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 42, by which the compromise application filed by the applicant and opposite party no. 2 and 3 has been rejected.

¶14

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the instant case, the parties have been entered into compromise and they have settled their dispute amicably. The compromise petition which was filed before the trial court was rejected by the impugned order dated 16.04.2025.

¶15

The learned trial court was not wrong in holding that the offences under POCSO Act are not compoundable, but however, this is a proceeding under Section 528 B.N.S.S. and this Court being a Constitutional Court and keeping in view the nature of the offence which is not very heinous or

¶16

NA528 No. 39278 of 2025

¶17

¶18

serious and also in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16900 of 2020 (Jamuna @ Yamuna Singh and 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), realises it essential to give positive relief to the parties of this case by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2025.

¶19

Parties are directed to appear before the trial court and file a fresh compromise and after due verification of the same by the court concerned in the light of the order passed today, the learned trial court is directed to send the compliance report before this Court by the next date fixed.

¶20

List this case on 03.11.2025 as fresh.

¶21

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case crime number.

¶22

October 9, 2025 Anjali

¶23

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Achal Gangwar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achal Gangwar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kajal and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Tanu and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Balendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Fatima Nisha and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Tarana and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Pinki Kumari Saini and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others