Waris and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77002

Court No. - 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6123 of 2025

Applicant :- Waris And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Araf Khan,Sonakshi Arora Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Araf Khan, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Applicants-Waris And 4 Others, who are named as well as charge sheeted accused and have now been summoned by Court below, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer:-

¶9

"IT is, therefore, MOST RESPECTFULLY Prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to:

¶10

(1) Set aside the Cognizance/Summoning Order dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure No.1) passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bulandshahr in Crl. Case No.4051 of 2023 on the Charge Sheet dated 15.03.2021 and the entire criminal proceedings of Crime No.220 of 2020, under Sections 147,148,452,323,354A,376,511,506, IPC, against the Applicant No.1 and under Sections 147,148,452,323,506, IPC against the Applicant No.2 to 5, Police Station-Ahmadgarh, District-Bulandshahr;

¶11

(2) stay the said Impugned Cognizance/Summoning Order dated 05.06.2023 proceedings and the of the Court whole criminal below lis pendens, otherwise the Applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶12

(3) And/or pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶13

Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants are

¶14

named and charge sheeted accused and have also been summoned by Court below. However, the criminal prosecution of applicants cannot be sustained any further.

¶15

In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicants submits that during pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the terms of compromise were reduced to writing by way of a compromise deed dated 12.02.2025. Copy of the compromise deed has been brought on record and is at page 58 of the paper book.

¶16

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that in view of the compromise entered into by the parties no useful purpose shall now be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused applicants are now not only remote but also bleak. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, the impugned proceedings are therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶17

In view of above, the Court raised a pointed query as to whether the said compromise entered into by the parties has been filed before Court below or not.

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant fairly submits that said compromise deed has not yet been filed before Court below.

¶19

At this juncture, the learned A.G.A. submits that there is no such material on record on the basis of which it cannot be conclusively concluded that parties have entered into a compromise. Furthermore, the Apex Court in the case of Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR Online 2019 SC 1716 , has clearly observed that there can be no compromise in matters relating to rape and sexual assault. In view of above the compromise if any, entered into by the parties is misconceived. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

¶20

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the

¶22

record, but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

¶23

As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶25

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Imtiyaz

¶26

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Waris and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waris and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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