Allahabad High Court
PANKAJ SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the verified compromise is permissible and therefore the criminal proceedings must be quashed.
Summary
The applicant, Pankak Singh, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S. seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 857 of 2025, which involved offences under Sections 281, 125(1), 125(b) and 106(1) of the B.N.S. A compromise between the parties had been reached and subsequently verified by the Judicial Magistrate’s Court. Both the State and the opposite party consented to the quashal. The High Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions that permit compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Considering the verified settlement and the lack of any public interest in continuing the trial, the Court held that the compromise was lawful and ordered the entire criminal proceeding to be quashed. The application was allowed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise can be effected and the criminal proceedings quashed in cases involving cognizable and non‑compoundable offences under the B.N.S.
- Whether verification of the compromise by the trial court suffices to bar continuation of the prosecution
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 106(1), 125(1), 125(b), 281
Subjects
- compromise
- criminal procedure
- non‑compoundable offence
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528
- verification of compromise
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1155 of 2026
Pankaj Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Bind, Bhagwan Das Bind
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Himanshu Kashyap
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 857 of
2025 (State Vs. Pankaj Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of
2025 under Sections 281, 125 (1), 125 (b) and 106 (1) B.N.S., Police
Station Kampil, District-Farrukhabad pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Kayamganj, District-Farrukhabad, on the basis of
compromised so arrived at between the parties.
3. While entertaining the present criminal application, this Court
passed the order dated 9th 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
23rd September, 2026 has verified the compromise so arrived at
between the parties, a copy of which has been brought on record
along with the supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today which is
taken on record.
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
NA528 No. 1155 of 2026
2
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.
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.
NA528 No. 1155 of 2026
3
10. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 857 of
2025 (State Vs. Pankaj Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of
2025 under Sections 281, 125 (1), 125 (b) and 106 (1) B.N.S., Police
Station Kampil, District-Farrukhabad pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Kayamganj, District-Farrukhabad are hereby quashed.
11. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
September 30, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…