Anwar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 May 2026A482/33127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge-sheet, cognizance order and criminal proceedings on the basis of a court-verified compromise between the parties; inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS; offence under Sections 354, 452 IPC; Case Crime No. 553 of 2018, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly; Criminal Case No. 103 of 2019 (State vs. Anwar); reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 AIR SCW 5333), B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 3 SCC 675) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466); private dispute, no wider social impact; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the charge-sheet dated 1.7.2018, the cognizance order dated 8.1.2019 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 103 of 2019 (State vs. Anwar), arising out of Case Crime No. 553 of 2018, under Sections 354, 452 IPC, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet dated 1.7.2018, the cognizance order dated 8.1.2019 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 103 of 2019 may be quashed in exercise of the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of a compromise between the parties verified by the Trial Court.

¶¶8

Court's answer

Following Apex Court precedent (Gian Singh, B.S. Joshi, Narinder Singh), the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS can be exercised to do real and substantial justice, including to bring criminal proceedings to an end where the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

Where the dispute is essentially of a private nature with no wider social impact, the parties have mutually settled it by compromise and do not wish to pursue the case, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the matter further.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The application is allowed and the charge-sheet dated 1.7.2018, the cognizance order dated 8.1.2019 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 103 of 2019 (State vs. Anwar), arising out of Case Crime No. 553 of 2018, under Sections 354, 452 IPC, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, are quashed.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjiv Kumar, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the charge-sheet dated 1.7.2018 under Sections 354, 452 IPC (Case Crime No. 553 of 2018, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly), the cognizance order dated 8.1.2019, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 103 of 2019 (State vs. Anwar). The parties had entered into a compromise; by order dated 6.11.2024 the Trial Court was directed to verify it, and the A.C.J.M., Court No.1, Bareilly verified the compromise vide report/order dated 20.11.2024, which the learned A.G.A. conceded. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 AIR SCW 5333), B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 3 SCC 675) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466), the Court held that inherent power can be exercised to do real and substantial justice and to speed up the ending of criminal proceedings where the parties have settled; the dispute being essentially private with no wider social impact, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33127 of 2024

¶3

Anwar

¶4

	.....	Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Hasan Parvej
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Aman Kumar,	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 83

¶6

HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Hasan Parvej, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Akhilesh Kr. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 1.7.2018 and cognizance order dated 8.1.2019 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 103 of 2019 (State vs. Anwar), arising out of Case Crime No. 553 of 2018, under Sections 354, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the parties have entered into compromise and vide order dated 6.11.2024, a direction was given to the learned Trial Court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned Trial Court has verified the contents of compromise vide order dated 20.11.2024.

¶10

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

¶11

In pursuance of the order dated 6.11.2024 of this Court, A.C.J.M., Court No.1, Bareilly has submitted his report dated 20.11.2024, which shows that the compromise entered between the parties has been verified. A copy of the verification order along with the verified compromise has also been annexed

¶12

A482 No. 33127 of 2024

¶13

¶14

with the report.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and the charge-sheet dated 1.7.2018 and cognizance order dated 8.1.2019 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 103 of 2019 (State vs. Anwar), arising out of Case Crime No. 553 of 2018, under Sections 354, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

¶18

(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)

¶19

May 6, 2026

¶20

Vandana

¶21

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

Anwar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lakhami Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubham Pandey and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubham Pandey and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Lakhami Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another