Neeraj Awasthi and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Neeraj Awasthi and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire proceedings of Case No. 738 of 2018 (State Vs. Neeraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0095 of 2017, including the chargesheet dated 20.01.2018 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 08.06.2018, quashed; the application under Section 528 BNSS allowed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 20.01.2018, the cognizance/summoning order dated 08.06.2018 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 738 of 2018 (State Vs. Neeraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0095 of 2017, are liable to be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the applicants and opposite party no.2.

Court's answer

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the record and the law laid down by the Apex Court on quashing upon settlement between the parties, the present case is a good case for exercising this Court's powers to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

Key takeaways

The entire proceedings of Case No. 738 of 2018 (State Vs. Neeraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0095 of 2017, including the chargesheet dated 20.01.2018 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 08.06.2018, are quashed.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Chawan Prakash, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the chargesheet dated 20.01.2018, the cognizance/summoning order dated 08.06.2018 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 738 of 2018 (State Vs. Neeraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0095 of 2017 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 323, 504, 506, 325, 307 IPC, Police Station Amritpur, District Farrukhabad, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Farrukhabad. The Court found on the record that the parties had entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably; the compromise was stated to have been verified by the trial court, and opposite party no.2, through counsel Mr. Mukesh Kumar, admitted the compromise and raised no objection to quashing. Relying on the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, Manoj Sharma v. State, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Shaifullah v. State of U.P. and Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat, the Court held the case fit for exercise of its quashing powers and allowed the application.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2721 of 2026

Neeraj Awasthi And 6 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 79

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

A vakalatnama has been filed today in Court by Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Counsel on behalf of opposite party no.2. It is taken on record.

Heard Mr. Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned chargesheet dated 20.01.2018 and the cognizance/summoning, order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Farrukhabad, as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 738 of 2018 (State Vs. Neeraj and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0095 of 2017, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 323, 504, 506, 325, 307 I.P.C. Police Station Amritpur, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Farrukhabad. "

Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants and opposite party No.2 have compromised the dispute. It is further argued that the said compromise has also been verified by the concerned Trial Court, as such the proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 admitted the fact of compromise and stated that he has no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed against the applicants.

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

NA528 No. 2721 of 2026

2

The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicants.

The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed .

The present application is allowed .

April 20, 2026 Vijay

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

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