Amit Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2526 of 2026

Amit Kumar And Another	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Mukesh Joshi : Jainendra Kumar Sharma, G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 78

¶4

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶5

Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the accused-applicant appears and submits that the false and frivolous F.I.R. of rape has been lodged by the opposite party no.2, father of victim including the offences pertaining to POCSO Act. The F.I.R. is not only delayed, but also the counterblast F.I.R., as the case filed by the accused-applicant under Section S.C./S.T. Act against the informant, is filed prior to the present F.I.R. He submits that presently, the accused-applicant and the victim/informant, who are the co-residents of the same village, have buried their hatches and entered into compromise. The compromise is at page no.105, wherein the accused-applicant and opposite party no.2 does not want to continue with the case and submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged merely because of the dispute between the parties. Hence, seeks interference to quash the charge sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Special Case No.1139 of 2024, CNR No.UPMO01009758-2024 (State Vs. Amit and another), under Sections 70(2), 331(6), 351(3) B.N.S. and 5G/6 POCSO Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 207 of 2024, Police Station Chhajlet, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.1, Moradabad, interalia , on the ground of compromise. Hence, he seeks interference of this Court.

¶6

Sri Akash Kumar Sharma, learned advocate, holding the brief, appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and admits the factum of compromise between the parties as well as the lodging of F.I.R. due to dispute between the families. He submits that the compromise is of withdrawing the cases filed by the accused-applicant and the informant.

¶7

NA528 No. 2526 of 2026

¶8

2

¶9

Learned AGA for the State submits no objection if the parties approach trial court to file compromise in the given circumstances.

¶10

In the case of Madhukar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2 025 SCC OnLine SC 1415 (relevant paragraphs 5, 6 and 7) Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (under Section 528 B.N.S.S.) for quashing criminal proceedings in terms of compromise. It is held that inherent power must be exercised in reference to the facts of each case. It is further observed that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly is of grave and heinous nature and ordinarily quashing of proceedings involved such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. With the same conviction, on the other hand, held that the power of Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to secure the ends of justice is not constrained and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case. This observation has been made when the parties have resolved their disputes amicably and desirous of moving on in their life and the FIR is the result of same reactionary effect. In such circumstances, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose, on the contrary, it would only prolong the distress for all concerned, specially the complainant and burden the Court without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

¶11

Whether the parties (informant, victim and accused) have entered into compromise, can best be adjudicated by the trial court. As such, the parties may appear before the trial court and file the compromise entered into between the parties within thirty days , which shall be verified by the trial court. The trial court shall place the original in its record.

¶12

No compromise shall be entertained by the trial court if the informant, victim and accused are not signatories and appear before the court for its verification. In case of exigency, the trial court shall apply its mind and pass appropriate order.

¶13

For a period of two months, the proceedings of the trial court shall be kept in abeyance, if the compromise is filed and verified within stipulated period, otherwise, the trial court shall continue with the trial.

¶14

NA528 No. 2526 of 2026

¶15

3

¶16

All the parties, who files compromise and get it verified shall then file a joint application invoking inherent power of this Court to quash the criminal proceeding.

¶17

In view of the above, the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S./482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly disposed of .

¶18

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶19

February 3, 2026

¶20

Shivangi

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Smt Anisa and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

X through His Natural Guardian Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Rajbhar @ Kariya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Juvenile Xxx Thru. His Father Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Kamlesh Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Sunita Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko