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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the charge-sheet dated 10.5.2018, cognizance order dated 5.7.2018 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 2936 of 2018, arising out of case crime No. 6 of 2018, under Sections 354(kha), 452, 323, 308 IPC, P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet dated 10.5.2018, cognizance order dated 5.7.2018 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 2936 of 2018 (arising out of case crime No. 6 of 2018) under Sections 354(kha), 452, 323, 308 IPC should be quashed in exercise of the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS on account of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Court's answer

Following Apex Court precedent (Gian Singh, B.S. Joshi, Narinder Singh), the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS can be exercised to bring criminal proceedings to an end where a settlement has been arrived at between the parties.

Ratio / Principle

Where the parties do not wish to pursue the case, the dispute is essentially of a private nature with no wider social impact, and it has been mutually settled by way of a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the matter further.

Key takeaways

The application is allowed and the charge-sheet dated 10.5.2018, cognizance order dated 5.7.2018 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 2936 of 2018, arising out of case crime No. 6 of 2018, under Sections 354(kha), 452, 323, 308 IPC, P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly are quashed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal law — Quashing — Inherent powers — Section 528 BNSS — Compromise between parties duly verified by the trial court (verification order dated 18.4.2026; report of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Bareilly dated 5.5.2026) — Charge-sheet dated 10.5.2018, cognizance order dated 5.7.2018 and entire proceeding of Case No. 2936 of 2018 (case crime No. 6 of 2018) under Sections 354(kha), 452, 323, 308 IPC, P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly quashed — Dispute essentially of a private nature with no wider social impact; parties did not wish to pursue the case; no useful purpose in continuation — Reliance placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 AIR SCW 5333), B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 3 SCC 675) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466) — Application allowed (Sanjiv Kumar, J.; May 6, 2026).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4953 of 2025

Sajid

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Ramajan Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

Court No. - 83

HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Heard Sri Ramajan Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Hasan Sartaj, Advocate holding brief of Sri Hasan Parvej, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 10.5.2018, cognizance order dated 5.7.2018 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 2936 of 2018, arising out of case crime No. 6 of 2018, under Sections 354(kha), 452, 323, 308 IPC, P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly.

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise and vide order dated 30.3.2026, a direction was given to the learned Trial Court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned Trial Court has verified the contents of compromise vide order dated 18.4.2026.

Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the court below.

In pursuance of the order dated 30.3.2026 of this Court, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Bareilly has submitted his report dated 5.5.2026, which shows that the compromise entered between the parties has

NA528 No. 4953 of 2025

2

been verified. A copy of the verification order along with the verified compromise has also been annexed with the report.

Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.

In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the parties do not wish to pursue the case any further, the dispute is essentially of a private nature and has no wider social impact. Since it has been mutually settled between the parties by way of a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the matter further.

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and charge-sheet dated 10.5.2018, cognizance order dated 5.7.2018 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 2936 of 2018, arising out of case crime No. 6 of 2018, under Sections 354(kha), 452, 323, 308 IPC, P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly are hereby quashed.

(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)

May 6, 2026 Vandana

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad