Waseem vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 767 of 2026

Waseem

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Sarve Nazir, Zafar Abbas
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 78

¶6

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶7

Shri Sarve Nazir, learned counsel for applicant appeared and seeks permission to delete the opposite party no. 2 as a party, because he is incorrectly arrayed as a party. He is neither the informant nor the victim.

¶8

2. Allowed.

¶9

Let the necessary amendment be incorporated during the course of the day.

¶10

Ms. Nahid Khan, learned Advocate, holding brief appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 3 and hands up the Vakalatnama of Shri Anas Khan, learned counsel, the same is taken on record. She has also filed a short counter affidavit, the same is taken on record, wherein victim/informant has specifically stated that the allegation made by her in the F.I.R. is false and made due to family pressure.

¶11

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been moved to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Session Case No. 2339/2022 (State Vs. Waseem and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 26 of 2022, under Sections 366, 376D, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Sonakpur, DistrictMoradabad, pending in the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 2, Moradabad.

¶12

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the F.I.R. is said to have been lodged by opposite party no. 3 (victim) but the contents of F.I.R.

¶13

NA528 No. 767 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

shows that the F.I.R. is lodged by the husband of opposite party no. 3, who alleged that on 23.04.2022 at about 2:30 a.m. his wife (informant) was enticed away by accused-applicant. Further alleged that the opposite party no. 3 was married 11 years back and having three children but left her home. The F.I.R. is belated and lodged on 20.05.2022. After the investigation, charge sheet is submitted for offence of enticement and gang rape. He submits that there is a village political rivalry. He submits that there is a compromise between the parties and seeks interference of this Court.

¶16

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 admits the factum of compromise between the parties, as she was made instrumental in getting the FIR lodged.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits no objection if the parties approach trial court to file compromise in the given circumstances.

¶18

In the case of Madhukar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415 (relevant paragraphs 5, 6 and 7) Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (under Section 528 B.N.S.S.) for quashing criminal proceedings in terms of compromise. It is held that inherent power must be exercised in reference to the facts of each case. It is further observed that the offence under Section 376 IPC undoubtedly is of grave and heinous nature and ordinarily quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. With the same conviction, on the other hand, held that the power of Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to secure the ends of justice is not constrained and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case. This observation has been made when the parties have resolved their disputes amicably and desirous of moving on in their life and the FIR is the result of same reactionary effect. In such circumstances, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose, on the contrary, it would only prolong the distress for all concerned, specially the complainant and burden the Court without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

¶19

NA528 No. 767 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

It is an admitted fact that the victim/informant herself is stating incorrect facts in the FIR and she was under pressure to give statement. The fact and circumstances of this case is to be looked in the light of observation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court dealt herein above.

¶22

Whether the parties (victim and accused) have entered into compromise, can best be adjudicated by the trial court. As such, the parties may appear before the trial court and file the compromise entered into between the parties within 30 days, which shall be verified by the trial court. The trial court shall place the original in its record.

¶23

No compromise shall be entertained by the trial court if the informant, victim and accused are not signatories and appear before the court for its verification. In case of exigency, the trial court shall apply its mind and pass appropriate order.

¶24

For a period of two months, the proceedings of the trial court shall be kept in abeyance, if the compromise is filed and verified within stipulated period, otherwise, the trial court shall continue with the trial.

¶25

All the parties, who files compromise and get it verified shall then file a joint application invoking inherent power of this Court to quash the criminal proceeding.

¶26

In view of above, the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S./482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶28

January 13, 2026

¶29

Sharad/-

¶30

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

Waseem v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Similar cases

X Juvenile Thru. Her Maternal Uncle Mr Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Pankaj Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Azad vs U.O.I. Thru. Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau Lucknow

Sunita Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ateen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Hafij Shah vs State of U.P. and 3 Others