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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the chargesheet dated 8.5.2018, the cognizance and summoning order dated 17.12.2018, and the entire proceedings of Case No. 5167 of 2018 (State Vs. Nayamuddin) arising out of Case Crime No. 935 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Dharmsinghwa, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 8.5.2018, the cognizance/summoning order dated 17.12.2018 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 5167 of 2018 (State Vs. Nayamuddin), arising out of Case Crime No. 935 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Dharmsinghwa, District Sant Kabir Nagar, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Court's answer

On perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the settlement between the parties and the law laid down by the Apex Court (B.S. Joshi; Nikhil Merchant; Manoj Sharma; Gian Singh; Shaifullah; Parbatbhai Ahir) that cases in which parties have settled their grievances can be quashed, the present case is a good case for exercising this Court's power to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

Key takeaways

The entire proceedings of Case No. 5167 of 2018 (State Vs. Nayamuddin) are quashed and the application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Chawan Prakash, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 8.5.2018, the cognizance/summoning order dated 17.12.2018 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 5167 of 2018 (State Vs. Nayamuddin), arising out of Case Crime No. 935 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Dharmsinghwa, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. The applicant and opposite party no.2 had compromised the dispute, the compromise had been verified by the concerned Trial Court, and opposite party no.2 admitted the compromise and raised no objection. Relying on B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, Shaifullah 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Parbatbhai Ahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court held that cases in which parties have settled their grievances can be quashed, found this a fit case for exercising its quashing powers, quashed the entire proceedings and allowed the application.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41872 of 2025

Nayamuddin

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ravindra Prakash Srivastava : Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, G.A.

Court No. - 79

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Heard Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rajit Ram, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this criminal misc. application and to quash the chargesheet dated 8.5.2018 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 17.12.2018 and entire proceedings of Case No. 5167 of 2018 (State Vs. Nayamuddin) arising out of Case Crime No. 935 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Dharmsinghwa, District-Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. "

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant and opposite party No.2 have compromised the dispute. It is further argued that the said compromise has also been verified by the concerned Trial Court, as such the proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 admitted the fact of compromise and stated that he has no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed against the applicant.

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

NA528 No. 41872 of 2025

2

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.

From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicants.

The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed .

The present application is allowed .

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

April 20, 2026

Vijay

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