Barkha @ Anuj Barkha v. State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29590 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anand Prakash Duabey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶2This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including charge-sheet dated 12.11.2019 and the learned court below has taken cognizance on 06.01.2020 in Case No.584 of 2021 (State Versus Anuj) registered with Case Crime No. 824 of 2019 under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat pending before Gramin Nayalay, Baraut, Baghpat on the basis of compromise verification dated on 07.05.2025.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on

07.05.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 08.09.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶4Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicants. He further contended that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Prakash Dubey, Prashant Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Barkha @ Anuj Barkha .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) with the criminal case against the applicants and the same may be quashed.

¶5Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement which is duly verified by the court concerned. It is further submitted that he would have no objection in case criminal proceedings are put to an end. He further submits that in view of settlement there is virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal proceedings.

¶6Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings in the present case had essentially been an outcome of a dispute; and there are no such over bearing circumstances for which the applicants ought to be prosecuted even after the parties has entered into a settlement. Needless to observe that with the present stand of the parties in terms of their settlement, there is practically no chance of recording conviction, even if the case under the F.I.R. in question is put to trial. In other words, entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility. On the contrary, looking to the nature of dispute and the fact that the disputants have compromised and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings in question are quashed.

¶7It would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.

¶8In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter has been mutually settled between the parties in view of the compromise dated 07.05.2025, no useful purpose would be NA528 No. 29590 of 2025 served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶9Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶10The present application is, accordingly, allowed. September 26, 2025 S.Prakash NA528 No. 29590 of 2025 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad