Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110740

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8730 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamalendra Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mool Chandra Maurya,G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants today in Court is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 03.06.2012 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 15.06.2012, of Case No. 5529 of 2017 (State v. Ramesh Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2012, under Sections 386, 387, 393, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Majhola, District Moradabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Moradabad, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the alleged dispute between the parties has taken place due to misconception and that now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the informant of the case does not want to pursue the impugned proceedings. The allegation against the applicants is that they have made demand of extortion from informant. In pursuance to order dated 19.03.2025, passed by this Court, both the parties have filed compromise before the trial Court, which has

¶9

duly been verified vide order dated 03.04.2025, the certified copy of the same is available on record. It was submitted that in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has concurred with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and the informant does not want to proceed with the case pending before the trial court and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.

¶12

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶13

It is well settled that in appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise by invoking inherent powers enshrined under Section 528 BNSS. In the instant case, the matter relates to private dispute between the parries. If parties compromise the matter, it would not have adverse impact on society. The informant of the case does not want to pursue the impugned proceedings. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Considering facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, entire impugned proceedings, including

¶15

charge-sheet & cognizance / summoning order, of the aforesaid case, against applicants, namely, Ramesh Kumar and Jabar Singh are hereby quashed .

¶16

The application u/s 528 BNSS is allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Rama Kant

¶18

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

Ramesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar and Another 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