Vijesh Vohra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vijesh Vohra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the chargesheet dated 22.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.06.2024, along with the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3669 of 2024 (State Vs. Vijesh Vohra and another), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2024 under Sections 452, 354(B), 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Baraut, District Baghpat; liberty reserved to opposite party no.2 to file a recall application if she feels duped or betrayed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 22.05.2024, the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.06.2024 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3669 of 2024 (State Vs. Vijesh Vohra and another), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2024 under Sections 452, 354(B), 323, 504, 506 IPC, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

The chargesheet dated 22.05.2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.06.2024, along with the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3669 of 2024 (State Vs. Vijesh Vohra and another), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2024 under Sections 452, 354(B), 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, are quashed in light of the compromise.

Ratio / Principle

Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties, there would be no harm and error in quashing the proceedings.

Key takeaways

The compromise had already been preferred and was verified by the learned court concerned on 22.12.2025, and was appended with the supplementary affidavit; this was ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.ratio¶10
The order was passed after hearing the contesting parties; if opposite party no.2 feels she has been duped or betrayed, she may seek recall of the order by filing a recall application explaining the reasons.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the chargesheet dated 22.05.2024, the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.06.2024 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3669 of 2024 (State Vs. Vijesh Vohra and another), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2024 under Sections 452, 354(B), 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Baraut, District Baghpat, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat. The quashing rested on the parties having amicably settled their dispute, the compromise having been verified by the concerned court on 22.12.2025 and appended with a supplementary affidavit, a fact confirmed by counsel for opposite party no.2. Reliance was placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (quashing permissible on settlement even where offences are not compoundable) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 (special facts/family disputes). Liberty was reserved to opposite party no.2 to seek recall of the order if she felt duped or betrayed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40857 of 2025

Vijesh Vohra And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Umesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Shams Uz Zaman, G.A.
Court No.- 75

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for applicants and Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA.

The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated 22.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.06.2024 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3669 of 2024 (State Vs. Vijesh Vohra and another), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2024, under Sections 452, 354(B), 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Baraut, District Baghpat, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, on the basis of compromise.

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned court concerned on dated 22.12.2025 which has been appended with the supplementary affidavit, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and as such, there would be no harm and error if the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has observed in para 54 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, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility

NA528 No. 40857 of 2025

2

and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; 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.

Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, chargesheet dated 22.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.06.2024 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3669 of 2024 (State Vs. Vijesh Vohra and another), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2024, under Sections 452, 354(B), 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Baraut, District Baghpat, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, are hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed .

This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, she may seek recall of this order by way of filing recall application explaining the reasons.

February 3, 2026 Vivek Kr.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

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