Rajesh Jain and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rajesh Jain and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the chargesheet dated 06.06.2017 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 12.10.2017, along with the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3261 of 2017 (State Vs. Rajesh Jain and others), arising out of Case Crime No.120 of 2017, with liberty to opposite party no. 2 to seek recall of the order by filing a recall application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 06.06.2017, the cognizance/summoning order dated 12.10.2017 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3261 of 2017 (State Vs. Rajesh Jain and others), arising out of Case Crime No.120 of 2017, can be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties.

Court's answer

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 if the proceedings are quashed in light of the compromise.

Ratio / Principle

The chargesheet dated 06.06.2017 and cognizance/summoning order dated 12.10.2017, along with the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3261 of 2017 (State Vs. Rajesh Jain and others), arising out of Case Crime No.120 of 2017, under Sections 147, 354, 354(A), 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, are quashed.

Key takeaways

Opposite party no. 2 is at liberty to seek recall of this order by way of filing a recall application explaining the reasons if she feels duped or betrayed.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the chargesheet dated 06.06.2017 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 12.10.2017, along with the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3261 of 2017 (State Vs. Rajesh Jain and others), arising out of Case Crime No.120 of 2017 under Sections 147, 354, 354(A), 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Chowk, District Varanasi, pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, on the basis of a compromise between the parties verified by the court concerned on 21.04.2026. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (three-Judge Bench) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, the Court held that, the parties having amicably settled their dispute and the compromise being confirmed and admitted, there would be no harm and error in quashing the proceedings. Opposite party no. 2 was granted liberty to seek recall of the order by filing a recall application explaining the reasons if she felt duped or betrayed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45006 of 2025

Rajesh Jain And 3 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anil Kumar Bajpai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Rajesh Kumar Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 77

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for applicants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA.

The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated 06.06.2017 and cognizance/summoning order dated 12.10.2017 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3261 of 2017 (State Vs. Rajesh Jain and others), arising out of Case Crime No.120 of 2017, under Sections 147, 354, 354(A), 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Chowk, District Varanasi, pending in the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, 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 21.04.2026 which has been appended with this petition, 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. 45006 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 06.06.2017 and cognizance/summoning order dated 12.10.2017 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3261 of 2017 (State Vs. Rajesh Jain and others), arising out of Case Crime No.120 of 2017, under Sections 147, 354, 354(A), 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Chowk, District Varanasi, pending in the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, 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.

May 15, 2026 Vivek Kr.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

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