Neetu and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Neetu and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed; chargesheet dated 14.02.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.04.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.44 of 2026 (State Vs. Neetu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.619 of 2024, under Sections 326(g), 324(4) BNS, P.S. Naugawan Sadat, District Amroha, quashed; liberty reserved to opposite party no. 2 to seek recall by filing a recall application explaining the reasons.

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 14.02.2025, the cognizance/summoning order dated 05.04.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.44 of 2026 (arising out of Case Crime No.619 of 2024, under Sections 326(g), 324(4) BNS) ought to be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Court's answer

The parties have amicably settled their dispute; the compromise has been verified by the learned court concerned (28.04.2026) and confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties, and therefore no harm or error would result in quashing the proceedings in light of the compromise.

Ratio / Principle

Applying the principles in Gian Singh (a High Court may quash criminal proceedings, even where the offences are not compoundable, once the dispute between offender and victim is settled, since continuation would be an exercise in futility and securing the ends of justice is the ultimate guiding factor) and Madhavrao Scindia (criminal proceedings in matters of civil nature such as matrimonial/family disputes may be quashed on special facts and special features to encourage genuine settlement), the Court quashed the chargesheet dated 14.02.2025, the cognizance/summoning order dated 05.04.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.44 of 2026.

Key takeaways

If opposite party no. 2 feels that she has been duped or betrayed, she may seek recall of this order by filing a recall application explaining the reasons.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of criminal proceedings - compromise between parties - Application under S. 528 BNSS to quash chargesheet dated 14.02.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.04.2025 and entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.44 of 2026 (State Vs. Neetu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.619 of 2024, under Sections 326(g), 324(4) BNS, P.S. Naugawan Sadat, District Amroha - compromise verified by the learned court concerned on 28.04.2026 and confirmed/admitted by counsel for the opposite parties - relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (quashing permissible where offender-victim dispute is settled even if offences are non-compoundable, continuation being an exercise in futility and ends of justice the ultimate guiding factor) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692] (special facts/special features in civil-nature and family disputes justify quashing to encourage genuine settlement) - chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order and entire criminal proceedings quashed - liberty to opposite party no. 2 to seek recall if she feels duped or betrayed - application allowed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14227 of 2026

Neetu And 2 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 77

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA.

The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated 14.02.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 05.04.2025 along with entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.44 of 2026 (State Vs. Neetu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.619 of 2024, under Sections 326(g), 324(4) BNS, P.S. Naugawan Sadat, District Amroha, pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Amroha, on the basis of compromise.

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned court concerned on dated 28.04.2026 which has been appended with this petition, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned AGA.

The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and as such, there would be no harm and error if the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has observed in para 54 of the said judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to

NA528 No. 14227 of 2026

2

an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.

In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties.

Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, chargesheet dated 14.02.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 05.04.2025 along with entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.44 of 2026 (State Vs. Neetu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.619 of 2024, under Sections 326(g), 324(4) BNS, P.S. Naugawan Sadat, District Amroha, pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Amroha, are hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed .

If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, she may seek recall of this order by way of filing recall application explaining the reasons.

May 15, 2026 Vivek Kr.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad