Jhuri @ Jagatpal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33874 of 2025

¶3

Jhuri @ Jagatpal And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mukesh Kumar Srivastava	Tiwari, Ravi Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ajitam Srivastav, Ojha	G.A., Kamlesh Kumar

¶6

Court No. - 19

¶7

HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri Ajitam Srivastav, learned Counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶9

It is submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have entered into compromise and have verified the compromise before the learned trial court, the verified compromise deed is on record.

¶10

This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6041 of 2017 (State Vs. Lallu @ Raju and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.273 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 452 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Hathgaon, DistrictFatehpur, and charge-sheet dated 17.12.2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Fatehpur.

¶11

Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that opposite party no. 2, Smt. Suman Yadav lodged an FIR against the applicants and other named co-accused with the allegation that on 24.10.2016 at about 06-06:30 p.m., the first informant's son Lavkush saw Rajesh and Pushpa were grappling with each other near Ex-Pradhan Nabibaksh's Sugarcane field, thereafter, he came to the village and told some persons about it, who paid no attention. On 28.10.2016, Pushpa's husband Lallu @ Raju Paasi came to the village and was told about the incident by some villagers, thereupon Lallu had beaten his wife on 30.10.2016. A panchayat was held at Lallu's house and instead of Rajesh the allegations were levelled upon Lavkush. On

¶12

NA528 No. 33874 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

31.10.2016 at about 08-08:30 a.m. the applicants and other named coaccused came to the house of the first informant, armed with weapons, and damaged the property, committed maarpeet with lathi danda, fists and kicks. Upon first informant's alarm Murtaja's wife Reshma came alongwith some other persons and the police who saved her life.

¶15

Upon this information, FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 452 and 506 IPC and after investigation charge-sheet was filed in the aforesaid sections before the competent court. The concerned court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the applicants and other coaccused persons. During the pendency of this application both the parties have entered into compromise and stated that the dispute between them is private in nature and they have amicably settled the dispute. In view of the above, under the direction of this Court vide order dated 06.10.2025 both the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial court for verification of compromise. In compliance thereof, both the parties appeared before the learned trial court and verified the compromise and the report dated 07.11.2025 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, DistrictFatehpur has been filed along with verified compromise in which it is stated that both the parties had appeared before the court and had verified the compromise.

¶16

In the present case, besides the applicants, there are other co-accused and the compromise has been entered into only between the applicants and opposite party no.2. In view of the above, learned A.G.A has submitted that as all the parties of the case have not entered into compromise, therefore, the proceeding cannot be quashed, in part, on the basis of compromise reached between the applicants and opposite party no.2.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have submitted that the court has power under Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash the proceeding of the case, in part, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. In support thereof, the applicants have drawn the attention of the court and relied on a decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Khursheed and Another Vs. State of U.P. 2023 O Supreme (All) 1644 and in application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.2924 of 2025 (Raj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 18.07.2025, Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:LKO:41412.

¶18

NA528 No. 33874 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

In above matters, also some of the parties of the case had settled their dispute on the basis of compromise and in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the proceedings of the case were quashed so far as the applicants of the case were concerned.

¶21

In Khursheed and Another (Supra) , the question was whether chargesheet and/ or criminal proceedings based upon the compromise can be quashed in part. In other words, whether the charge-sheet and/ or criminal proceedings based upon the compromise can be quashed qua the accused - applicant. In the above matter, admittedly, all the accused had not entered into the compromise and the application was filed for quashing the chargesheet and/ or criminal proceedings qua the applicants based upon the compromise. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted here in below:.

¶22

"7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the various pronouncements including the judgments passed in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012, 10 SCC 303], Narindra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1799 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 observed as under:-

¶23

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

¶24

15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves:

¶25

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society,

¶26

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public

¶27

NA528 No. 33874 of 2025

¶28

4

¶29

servants while working in that Capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

¶30

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, off the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest, its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the chargesheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh should be read Page 9 of 13 harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

¶31

15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter compromise, etc.

¶32

7.5 A two Judge Bench of the Apex Court again in Ramgopal vs. State of M.P. (2022) 14 SCC 531 has held as follows:-

¶33

"19.... Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:

¶34

19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of society;

¶35

19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;

¶36

19.3. Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; and

¶37

19.4. Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the

¶38

NA528 No. 33874 of 2025

¶39

5

¶40

purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

¶41

In nutshell, the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC can quash the charge-sheet and/or criminal proceeding even if the offence is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC and the said power can be exercised by the High Court in the light of the observations made in the judgments referred above which includes quashing of criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise.

¶42

9.2 In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the FIR qua the petitioner based upon the compromise. As per the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the High Court while exercising the power of quashing under Section 482 CrPC, is required to consider as to whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue and whether the chances of conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served."

¶43

In view of the above, the court held that FIR/ charge-sheet/ criminal proceeding can be quashed in part, qua the accused/ applicant in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The above matter also related to the offence of maarpeet, hurling abuse and giving threat to the first informant and in view of the above legal position, the application was allowed and the proceedings of the case were quashed on the basis of compromise qua the applicants.

¶44

In the present case also the dispute is with regard to committing maarpeet and giving threat to the first informant and therefore, looking into the contents of the FIR, accusations against the applicants, observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as quoted above, this Court is of the considered view that chances of conviction of applicants are extremely bleak and as the victim and applicants have settled their dispute amicably out of the court and have entered into compromise and have already verified the same before the learned trial court, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending against the applicants of this application.

¶45

Accordingly, for the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6041 of 2017 (State Vs. Lallu @ Raju and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.273 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 452 and 506 I.P.C., Police StationHathgaon, District- Fatehpur, and charge-sheet dated 17.12.2016, are hereby

¶46

NA528 No. 33874 of 2025

¶47

6

¶48

quashed, against the applicants No.1 and 2, to wit, Jhuri @ Jagatpal and Nan-Bachcha @ Shiv Baran , only.

¶49

January 29, 2026 AdityaG

¶50

(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)

¶51

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

Jhuri @ Jagatpal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhuri @ Jagatpal and Another 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

Similar cases

Ajay vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Chandresh Pal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kishor Singh and 21 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another

Damodar Prasad Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another