Allahabad High Court
NA528/40240/2026 of SAMEER SRIVASTAVA Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 28 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40240 of 2026 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40240 of 2026
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
4
Decisions referred to
In this index
4
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: "It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash/set-aside the charge sheet dated 26.03.2023 and cognizance order 03.05.2023 as well as entire proceedings arises out of case crime no. 16/2023 under Section 323, 504, 506, 498 A,, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station-Mahila Thana, District- Basti."
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have compromised the dispute. It is further argued that the said compromise has also been verified by the concerned Trial Court, as such the proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 admitted the fact of compromise and stated that he has no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed against the applicant.
5. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
6. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Sameer Srivastava .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
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.
7. Upon perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject, this is a fit case for exercising powers of this Court to quash the proceedings, as prayed for by the applicant.
8. The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, insofar as the present to the present applicant, are hereby quashed.
9. The present application is allowed.
September 29, 2026 Vijay NA528 No. 40240 of 2026 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad