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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire proceedings of Case No. 1575 of 2024 (Old Case No. 2119 of 2014), State versus Mohammad Salman and Others, arising out of N.C.R. No. 84 of 2013, Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly, including the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.03.2014 and charge sheet No. Nil of 2013 dated 18.09.2013, quashed; application allowed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Case No. 1575 of 2024 (Old Case No. 2119 of 2014), State versus Mohammad Salman and Others, arising out of N.C.R. No. 84 of 2013 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Court No. 4, Bareilly, are liable to be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on quashing of cases on settlement between the parties, the present case is a good case for exercising this Court's powers to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicants.

Key takeaways

The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case (Case No. 1575 of 2024, arising out of N.C.R. No. 84 of 2013) are quashed.ratio¶20
The present application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of compromise — Application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 19.03.2014, charge sheet No. Nil of 2013 dated 18.09.2013 and entire proceedings of Case No. 1575 of 2024 (Old Case No. 2119 of 2014), State versus Mohammad Salman and Others, arising out of N.C.R. No. 84 of 2013 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly, pending before Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Court No. 4, Bareilly — applicants and opposite party no.2 entered into compromise dated 25.11.2025, verified by the concerned Trial Court; opposite party no.2 admitted the compromise and had no objection to quashing — relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in 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 that cases in which parties have settled their grievances can be quashed, the Court held the case fit for exercise of its quashing powers — entire proceedings quashed; application allowed (Chawan Prakash, J.).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 50795 of 2025

Mohammad Salman And Another

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Imtyaz Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ehtesham Afsar Khan, G.A.

Court No. - 79

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

The supplementary affidavit, filed today in Court, is taken on record.

Heard Mr. Sheikh Sultan Momin, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Imtyaz Ahmad, learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ehtesham Afsar Khan, learned Counsel for 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 applicants with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed the this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application and quash the cognizance/Summoning order dated 19.03.2014 and charge sheet No. Nil of 2013 dated 18.09.2013 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 1575 of 2024 of 2014), State versus (Old Case No.2119 Mohammad Salman and Others, arising out N.C.R. No. 84 of 2013, Under Sections 323, 504, 506 of of I.P.C., Police StationKotwali, of District-Bareilly pending in the court Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Court No.4, of Bareilly in terms compromise dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit). "

Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants.

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

The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement

NA528 No. 50795 of 2025

2

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 .

May 6, 2026 Vijay

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

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