Allowed¶19

Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2026A482/16597/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise; inherent power; Section 528 BNSS; Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC; Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; compromise verified by trial court (report dated 22.01.2026); private dispute, no wider social impact; Criminal Case No. 478 of 2013; Case Crime No. 1049 of 2012; P.S. Dakore, District Jalaun; CJM Jalaun; Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P.; decided February 11, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 478 of 2013 (State Vs. Ram Babu Gupta and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1049 of 2012, under Sections 323, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dakore, District Jalaun, quashed. ¶19

Ram Babu Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 478 of 2013 should be quashed in exercise of the High Court's inherent power in view of the compromise arrived at and verified between the parties.

¶18

Court's answer

Following Gian Singh, B.S. Joshi and Narinder Singh, the inherent power of the High Court can be exercised to end criminal proceedings where the parties have arrived at a settlement, so as to do real and substantial justice.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Where the dispute is essentially of a private nature, has no wider social impact, and has been mutually settled by compromise, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the matter.

¶18

Key takeaways

The application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 478 of 2013 (State Vs. Ram Babu Gupta and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1049 of 2012 is quashed.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjiv Kumar, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 478 of 2013 (State Vs. Ram Babu Gupta and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1049 of 2012 under Sections 323, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dakore, District Jalaun, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun. The parties had reconciled their differences of their own free will and the compromise was duly verified by the trial court (verification report dated 22.01.2026 pursuant to direction dated 08.01.2026). Relying on Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab (2012 AIR SCW 5333), B.S. Joshi Vs State of Haryana ((2003) 3 SCC 675) and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466), the Court held that inherent power can be exercised where settlement is arrived at between the parties, the dispute being essentially of a private nature with no wider social impact, so no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16597 of 2013

¶3

Ram Babu Gupta

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Brajesh Kumar Ravish Kumar Sin	Singh, gh	J.S.P. Singh,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Akhilesh Tripathi, Govt. Advocate, Kumar Mishra	Ghana J.S.P.	Ram Niranjan, Singh, Rohit

¶6

Court No. - 84

¶7

HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rohit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of learned counsel for the applicant today in Court, is taken on record.

¶10

This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 478 of 2013 (State Vs. Ram Babu Gupta and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.1049 of 2012, under Sections 323, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Dakore, District- Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun.

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the parties that both the parties had re-conciled their differences on their own freewill and wish without any pressure and now living peacefully. The verified compromise deed and verification report of the learned trial court is being filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 08.01.2026, a direction was given to the trial court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned trial court had verified the contents of compromise.

¶13

A482 No. 16597 of 2013

¶14

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which has been duly verified by the parties before the concerned trial court court vide verification report dated 22.01.2026, annexed along with supplementary affidavit.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the trial court.

¶17

Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the parties do not wish to pursue the case any further, the dispute is essentially of a private nature and has no wider social impact. Since it has been mutually settled between the parties by way of a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the matter further.

¶19

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 478 of 2013 (State Vs. Ram Babu Gupta and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.1049 of 2012, under Sections 323, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Dakore, District- Jalaun, are hereby quashed.

¶20

February 11, 2026 AdityaG

¶21

(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu Gupta 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Imran and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivram Kesharwani and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Singh Rana vs State of U.P. and Another

Jubair Mallik and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhavana Gaud and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Vijaypal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another