Allowed¶17

Anil Kumar Yadav @ Sugan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 May 2026NA528/8134/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise/settlement between parties; application under Section 528 BNSS; charge sheet No. 139/2020 dated 12.04.2020; cognizance order and summoning/NBW order dated 31.03.2021; S.T. No. 244 of 2021; case crime No. 083 of 2020; Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC; Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act; P.S. Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj; Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad; verified compromise deed dated 07.04.2026; co-ordinate Bench order dated 11.03.2026; B.S. Joshi; Nikhil Merchant; Manoj Sharma; Gian Singh; Shaifullah; Parbatbhai Ahir; Anil Kumar Yadav @ Sugan v. State of U.P.; Samit Gopal, J.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceeding of S.T. No. 244 of 2021, charge sheet No. 139/2020 dated 12.04.2020, cognizance order and summoning/NBW order dated 31.03.2021 quashed. ¶17

Anil Kumar Yadav @ Sugan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8134 of 2026

¶3

Anil Kumar Yadav @ Sugan

¶4

		Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Devashish Tripathi, Pandey, Rajiv Dwivedi	Pushpa Raj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	Sharada Yadav, G.A.
Court No.- 75

¶5

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Devashish Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sharada Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The present application under Sections 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Anil Kumar Yadav @ Sugan , with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the impugned charge sheet No. 139/2020 dated 12.04.2020 along with cognizance order as well as summoning/NBW order dated 31.03.2021 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Allahabad as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No. 244 of 2021, arising out of case crime No. 083 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.- Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the said case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants states that an order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 directing the applicants to file the said compromise deed before the court concerned which was to be verified by the court concerned. In pursuance of the said order, the court concerned vide order dated 07.04.2026 verified the said compromise, copy of the same is on record. The same is not disputed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the said proposition.

¶11

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

¶12

NA528 No. 8134 of 2026

¶13

¶14

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.

¶15

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, charge sheet as well as cognizance/summoning order as prayed for by the applicant(s).

¶16

The present application is allowed .

¶17

The entire proceeding, charge sheet No. 139/2020 dated 12.04.2020 along with cognizance order as well as summoning/NBW order dated 31.03.2021 of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶18

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶19

May 6, 2026 M. ARIF

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar Yadav @ Sugan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Yadav @ Sugan 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

Similar cases

Dinesh Alias Vinod Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Reena Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Saini Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun vs State of U.P. and Another

Faiz @ Shahfaiz Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhay Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another