Allahabad High Court
Waseem And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187307
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22310 of 2025
Waseem And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Babu Lal Ram
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sadhana Maurya
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Certified copy of compromise verification report dated 25.9.2025 preferred on behalf of applicants is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Gyanendra Kumar holding brief of Ms. Sadhana Maurya, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
3. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case no. 1066 of 2012 (State vs. Waseem and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 250 of 2012 under sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Rath, District Hamirpur as well as charge sheet dated 23.9.2012 and cognizance order dated 4.10.2012.
4. In compliance of earlier order dated 11.9.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, compromise verification report has already been received from learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rath, District Hamirpur and the same has been preferred today by learned counsel for applicant which is taken on record, wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been verified on dated 25.9.2025 in presence of both the parties.
5. Sri Gyanendra Kumar holding brief of Ms. Sadhana Maurya, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicant.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of Case no. 1066 of 2012 (State vs. Waseem and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 250 of 2012 under sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Rath, District Hamirpur, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants namely Waseem, Khalik Kasaee, Deepu Soni and Nilesh Soni.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
11. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within three weeks from today.
12. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he/she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he/she may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
October 17, 2025
Shaswat
