Mukarram and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mukarram and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire proceedings of S.T. No.30/2025 (State vs. Govardhan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 350/2017, under Sections 364, 386, 411 IPC, P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur, pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur, only in respect of the applicants.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of S.T. No.30/2025 (State vs. Govardhan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 350/2017, under Sections 364, 386, 411 IPC, pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur, can be quashed on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties.

Court's answer

The Court recorded that the parties had amicably settled their dispute and that the fact of compromise had been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties, with no objection from opposite party no. 2 or the State.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the settlement and verified compromise, the entire proceedings of S.T. No.30/2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 350/2017 under Sections 364, 386, 411 IPC were quashed, but only in respect of the applicants before the Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise — Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed — Entire proceedings of S.T. No.30/2025 (State vs. Govardhan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 350/2017, under Sections 364, 386, 411 IPC, P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur, quashed only in respect of the applicants — Compromise verified on 12.11.2025 in presence of both parties pursuant to earlier order dated 28.10.2025; no objection by counsel for opposite party no. 2 or the State — Reliance placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (three-Judge Bench) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 — Continuation of proceedings after genuine settlement would be an exercise in futility; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31536 of 2025

Mukarram And 4 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri S.M. Faraz I. Kazmi, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Mohd. Amish, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

The instant application has been preferred with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No.30/2025 (State vs. Govardhan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 350/2017, under Sections 364, 386, 411 IPC, P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur pending in the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur, in terms of compromise entered between the parties.

In compliance of earlier order dated 28.10.2025 passed by this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur and the same is appended to order sheet wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified on dated 12.11.2025 in presence of both the parties.

Sri Mohd. Amish, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicant.

From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties and it has been submitted that there would be no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.

A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 58 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,

NA528 No. 31536 of 2025

2

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 an end and peace is resorted; 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.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of S.T. No.30/2025 (State vs. Govardhan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 350/2017, under Sections 364, 386, 411 IPC, P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur pending in the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants herein.

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed .

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

January 6, 2026

Rakesh

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad