Krishan Alias Krishan Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 October, 2025

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Krishan Alias Krishan Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 October, 2025

Bench: Saurabh Srivastava





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187133
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28897 of 2025   
 
   Krishan Alias Krishan Kumar    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 77
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated 10.12.2019 along with cognizance order dated 23.12.2021 and entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1428 of 2012 (State Vs. Krishan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.343 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 354-B, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.5, Meerut, on the basis of compromise.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that both the parties have already been entered into compromise and moreso, opposite party no.2 herself accepted the contents of the said compromise before learned court concerned on dated 06.06.2025 which has been appended with this petition.

4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise and as such, there would be no harm and error if the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.

5. A three-Judge Bench of the 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.

6. 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.

7. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, chargesheet dated 10.12.2019 along with cognizance order dated 23.12.2021 and entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1428 of 2012 (State Vs. Krishan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.343 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 354-B, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.5, Meerut, are hereby quashed.

8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

9. If in case, opposite party no. 2 feels that she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, she may seek recall of this order by way of filing recall application explaining the reasons.

10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.) October 17, 2025 Vivek Kr.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court