Riyazul and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶13

The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 11.4.2013 and cognizance and summoning order dated 8.1.2024 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.12, Fatehpur as well as entire proceeding of Case No.21 of 2014 (State vs. Riyazul and others) arising out of Case Crime No.16-A of 2013 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Bakewar, District Fatehpur.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicants approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this 528 BNSS application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, this Court vide order dated 19.2.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 19.3.2026 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He further submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be

¶15

NA528 No. 3461 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶19

Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

¶20

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278] , in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶22

Accordingly, the proceedings of charge sheet dated 11.4.2013 and cognizance and summoning order dated 8.1.2024 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.12, Fatehpur as well as entire proceeding of Case No.21 of 2014 (State vs. Riyazul and others) arising out of Case Crime No.16-A of 2013 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Bakewar, District Fatehpur is hereby quashed.

¶23

This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed .

¶24

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶25

April 22, 2026 Md Faisal

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Riyazul and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyazul and 2 Others 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

Smt Kanti Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjeet Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Tipu @ Ahtesham Ali and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritik vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramveer and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another