Allowed quashing of criminal proceedings under IPC and SC/ST Act upon verified compromise between applicant and opposite party. Cognizance order quashed; application allowed.
Cognizance order dated 03.04.2008 in S.T.No.385 of 2008 quashed; application allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41198 of 2025
| Versus Jitendra And 2 Others |
.....Applicant(s) |
|---|---|
| State of U.P. and Another | .....Opposite Party(s) |
| Counsel for Applicant(s) | : Rajiv Chowdhury |
| Counsel for Opposite Party(s) | : G.A. |
Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
NA528 No. 41198 of 2025
2
27.03.2025 verified the 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.
NA528 No. 41198 of 2025
3
useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
October 28, 2025
Nitin Verma
(Deepak Verma,J.)
Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act should be quashed on terms of compromise.
Whether a compromise between parties serves as a valid ground for quashing cognizable and non-compoundable offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶14
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of GujaratFollowed¶14
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶14
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi NarayananFollowed¶14
State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and anotherExplained¶14
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Jitendra And 2 Others
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
