Allowed¶18

Bhanu Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2026NA528/6975/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise; Section 528 BNSS application allowed; Criminal Case no. 33964 of 2023 / Case Crime no. 11 of 2020, sections 147, 323 IPC, PS Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi; cognizance order dated 12.12.2023 by CJM Jhansi challenged; compromise verified in presence of both parties; no objection by State (AGA) and opposite party no. 2; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia (1988) 1 SCC 692 relied on; proceedings quashed only qua applicants; Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Srivastava, J., April 6, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 33964 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime no. 11 of 2020 under sections 147, 323 IPC, PS Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi, limited to the applicants herein. ¶18

Bhanu Yadav and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 33964 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime no. 11 of 2020, sections 147, 323 IPC, PS Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi) and the cognizance order dated 12.12.2023 ought to be quashed in view of the amicable settlement/compromise between the parties.

¶12

Court's answer

The parties having amicably settled their dispute, with the compromise verified and admitted by learned counsel for the parties, it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings be quashed in light of the compromise.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 33964 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime no. 11 of 2020 under sections 147, 323 IPC, PS Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi is quashed only in respect of the applicants, and the application is allowed.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 6975 of 2026) filed by Bhanu Yadav and six others seeking quashing of the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 33964 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime no. 11 of 2020 under sections 147, 323 IPC, PS Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi, and the cognizance order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. Pursuant to an earlier order of the Court, a compromise verification report was received confirming that the compromise had been verified in the presence of both parties; counsel for the applicants, opposite party no. 2 and the State raised no objection. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 58) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, the Court held that where the dispute between the parties has been genuinely settled, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and quashing secures the ends of justice. The entire proceeding was quashed only in respect of the applicants, and the application was allowed (decision dated April 6, 2026).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6975 of 2026

¶3

Bhanu Yadav And 6 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Sunil Dubey, learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Abhinav Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 who preferred vakalatnama which is taken on record.

¶9

Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 33964 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime no. 11 of 2020 under sections 147, 323 IPC, PS- Sipari Bazar, DistrictJhansi and cognizance order dated 12.12.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

¶10

In compliance of earlier order passed by this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned concerned court and the same is appended to order sheet wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties.

¶11

Sri Abhinav Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicants.

¶12

From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties and it has been submitted that there would be no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.

¶13

NA528 No. 6975 of 2026

¶14

¶15

A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has observed in para 58 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 and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.

¶16

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.

¶17

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 33964 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime no. 11 of 2020 under sections 147, 323 IPC, PS- Sipari Bazar, DistrictJhansi, are hereby quashed , only in respect of applicants herein.

¶18

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed .

¶19

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶20

April 6, 2026 Shaswat

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhanu Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satish Chandra Chaudhary and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Nanhey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiyalal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Nath Rai vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Reena and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Anshu Kumar Bhartiya @ Anuj and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another