BNSS No. 25241 of 2025 · Allahabad High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Accordingly, the present application under Section 528 BNSS of the Code stands allowed.
Judgment
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Pandey learned counsel for applicant, Sri Akshay Raj Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State.
Present application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred with a prayer to allow the instant application and stay and quash Case Crime no.55 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Upendra Singh and another) under Sections 115(2), 137(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, 66(e) of the Information Technology Ac, 2000 and 3/4 (2), 19/21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Police Station Kuthond, District Jalaun pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai.
On the basis of verification report submitted by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai on the compromise application dated 30.07.2025, entered between the parties which is available on records, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and it has been jointly 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.
A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh 2 NA528 No. 25241 of 2025 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.
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.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of Case Crime no.55 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Upendra Singh and another) under Sections 115(2), 137(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, 66(e) of the Information Technology Ac, 2000 and 3/4 (2), 19/21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Police Station Kuthond, District Jalaun pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the present application under Section 528 BNSS of the Code stands allowed.
The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. September 8, 2025 Rakesh (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.