Shankar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37647 of 2025

Shankar And 4 Others

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Subodh Pandey : Ram Shyam Shanker Pandey, G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 80

¶6

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ram Shyam Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in the memo of application during course of the day.

¶10

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2549 of 2018 (new), (old No. 16080 of 2017) (Smt. Saroj Vs. Nihal Singh) as well as cognizance order dated 28.06.2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 5, Moradabad, on the basis of compromise dated 08.08.2025.

¶11

The parties before this Court had made a request that they have entered into a compromise in this matter and have settled all the disputes between them and now they do not want to proceed with this matter.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before this Court that the compromise entered into between the parties has been made without any coercion or undue influence upon the complainant of this case and is

¶13

NA528 No. 37647 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

a result of free will and consent of the parties.

¶16

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid and states that he has no objection if the impugned proceeding pending against the applicants is quashed.

¶17

A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2025 directed the learned trial court to verify the compromise deed in presence of both the parties and in compliance of the orders dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court, learned trial court submitted its verification report dated 09.03.2026 to this Court.

¶18

It appears from perusal of the record that the compromise between the parties is the result of free will and consent of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 without any coercion or undue influence.

¶19

In view of that, this Court finds that since the parties have entered into compromise which has already been verified by the trial court, now nothing rests in this matter to continue.

¶20

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.

¶21

The law is well-settled by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2549 of 2018 (new), (old No. 16080 of 2017) (Smt. Saroj Vs. Nihal Singh) as well as cognizance order dated 28.06.2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 5, Moradabad.

¶22

NA528 No. 37647 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

Accordingly, the present application is allowed .

¶25

Hence, entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2549 of 2018 (new), (old No. 16080 of 2017) (Smt. Saroj Vs. Nihal Singh) as well as cognizance order dated 28.06.2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 5, Moradabad are, hereby, quashed in terms of the compromise.

¶26

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶27

March 18, 2026

¶28

Rmk.

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shankar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kapil and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Singh Maurya vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary(Home) U.P., Lucknow and 2 Others

Aman Yadav Alias Anam and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rihan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Teekam Singh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Tasleem and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others