Allahabad High Court
NA528/40069/2026 of MOHAMMAD IMRAN @ HAZI SAIKHU Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 20 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40069 of 2026 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sagar Shakya, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Padmaker Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 2. The present
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40069 of 2026
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
5
Decisions referred to
In this index
5
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. Sagar Shakya, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Padmaker Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant 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 the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Charge sheet dated 21.05.2024 alongwith cognizance order dated 26.07.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge J.D.-10 Kanpur Nagar as well as proceeding of the Case No.72040 of 2024 (arising out of Case Crime No.049 of 2024), State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Imran @ Hazi Shaikhu and others, under section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019, Police Station Chamanganj District Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 15.06.2026 alongwith verification order dated 05.08.2026 pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-03 Kanpur Nagar."
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Padmaker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohammad Imran @ Hazi Saikhu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
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 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. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicant.
8. The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case with regard to the present applicant are hereby quashed.
9. The present application is allowed.
September 21, 2026 Vijay NA528 No. 40069 of 2026 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad