Allowed¶14

Sanu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2025NA528/7300/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise; Section 528 BNSS application; Section 392 IPC; Session Case No.1804 of 2023 (Faruk v. Sanu and others); summoning order dated 11.08.2023; P.S. Sahaswan, District Budaun; Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas); compromise verified by trial court; private dispute; no injury sustained; complainant not pursuing proceedings; applicants Sanu, Siraj, Shabbu, Shahzan; State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Raj Beer Singh, J.; decided 9.4.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:52792.

What did the court decide?

Entire impugned proceedings, including the summoning order, of Session Case No.1804 of 2023 (Faruk v. Sanu and others) against the applicants Sanu, Siraj, Shabbu and Shahzan quashed. ¶14

Sanu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire impugned proceedings, including the summoning order, of Session Case No.1804 of 2023 (Faruk v. Sanu and others) against the applicants Sanu, Siraj, Shabbu and Shahzan quashed.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings, including the summoning order dated 11.08.2023, in Session Case No.1804 of 2023 (Faruk v. Sanu and others) under Section 392 IPC pending against the applicants can be quashed on the basis of the compromise reached between the parties.

¶8

Court's answer

In appropriate cases, criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Since the dispute between the parties is private in nature, no one sustained any injury in the alleged incident, the compromise would not adversely affect society, and the compromise has been verified by the trial court, quashing the impugned proceedings is in the interest of justice; accordingly, the entire proceedings including the summoning order against Sanu, Siraj, Shabbu and Shahzan were quashed.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Raj Beer Singh, J.; order dated 9.4.2025) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS (Application No. 7300 of 2025) filed by Sanu and 3 Others seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, including the summoning order dated 11.08.2023, in Session Case No.1804 of 2023 (Faruk v. Sanu and others) under Section 392 IPC, Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Badaun. Holding that in appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties, and noting that the dispute was private in nature, that no one had sustained any injury in the alleged incident, that the compromise had been verified by the trial court, and that the complainant did not wish to pursue the proceedings, the Court held quashing to be in the interest of justice and quashed the entire proceedings against the applicants Sanu, Siraj, Shabbu and Shahzan.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52792

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7300 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sanu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Shri Arvind Kumar Sahu, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 which is taken on record. Report of compromise verification filed by learned counsel for the applicants is also taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

¶8

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been preferred for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, including summoning order dated 11.08.2023, of Session Case No.1804 of 2023 (Faruk v. Sanu and others), under Section 392 IPC, Police StationSahaswan, District- Budaun, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Badaun.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that alleged incident took place due to misconception and the dispute between the parties is private in nature. Now both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromised the case and the complainant of the case does not want to pursue the impugned proceedings. The compromise has already been verified by the trial court concerned. It was stated that in view of these facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and thus, the impugned

¶10

proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has concurred with arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter and they have settled all disputes. The compromise between the parties has already been verified by the Trial Court concerned. The complainant does not want to pursue the impugned proceedings and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶13

It is well-settled that in appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. In the instant matter, the dispute between the parties is private in nature and no one has sustained any injury in the alleged incident. If parties compromise the matter, it would not have any adverse affect on the society. The compromise between the parties has already been verified by the trial court. Considering the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed.

¶14

In view of aforesaid, the entire impugned proceedings, including summoning order, of the aforesaid case against applicants, namely, Sanu, Siraj, Shabbu and Shahzan are hereby quashed .

¶15

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Rama Kant

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases