Allahabad High Court
VAKEEL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that the criminal proceedings may be quashed where a court‑verified compromise between the parties exists, even for the non‑compoundable offences in question.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet, summons and the entire criminal proceedings (Case Crime No. 456 of 2023) relating to offences under Sections 323, 504 and 325 IPC, on the ground that the parties had reached a compromise which was verified by the trial court. The High Court, after noting earlier Supreme Court judgments allowing compromise even for certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose as the dispute was settled. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal case and allowed the application without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be the basis for quashing criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 325 IPC, which are generally non‑compoundable.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 325, 504
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528
- IPC
- High Court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1106 of 2026
Vakeel And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Fakhruzzaman
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd Ubaid Khan
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as
perused the entire material available on record.
2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer
to quash the charge-sheet dated 21st August, 2023, cognizance/summoning
order dated 25th July, 2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case
arising out of Case Crime No. 456 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504 and 325
I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Gursahaiganj, District-Kannauj pending in the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, on the basis of
compromised so arrived at between the parties.
3. While entertaining the present criminal application, a Coordinate Bench of
this Court passed the orders dated 10th February, 2026 and dated 8th
September, 2026 directing the applicants to file the compromise so entered
into between the parties before the trial court for its verification and the trial
court was inturn directed to verify the same.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the trial court vide order dated 22nd
September, 2026 has verified the compromise so arrived at between the
parties, a copy of which has been brought on record along with the order-
sheet of the present application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromised so
arrived at between the parties and the same has also been verified by the
court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be may be
quashed by this Court.
6. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2
have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
NA528 No. 1106 of 2026
2
7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC
675,
(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC
677,
(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
(vi).Dimpey Gujral W/o Vivek Gujral & Others Vs. Union Territory Thru.
Administrator Chandigarh & Others; (2013) 11 SCC 497,
(vii). H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 38 ,
and
(viii). Naushey Ali & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another; (2025) 4
SCC 78.
8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that
compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain
cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to
the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. &
Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court
in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein
above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the
court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by
prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the
parties have already settled their dispute.
10. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case arising out of Case
Crime No. 456 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504 and 325 I.P.C., Police
Station-Kotwali Gursahaiganj, District-Kannauj pending in the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj are hereby quashed.
11. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
September 29, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…