Allahabad High Court
RIYAZUL AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, a bona‑fide compromise between the parties permits the quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants filed a Section 528 CrPC application seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 11‑April‑2013 and related proceedings in a case involving offences under IPC sections 323, 324, 325 and 504. The applicants and the second opposite party had amicably settled the dispute and the latter expressed no desire to continue prosecution. Both parties, including the State, consented to the compromise and requested quashing of the case. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire proceeding were quashed, and the Section 528 application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can justify quashing proceedings in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under Section 528 of the CrPC.
- Whether the court may set aside a charge sheet and cognizance order on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 325, 504
Subjects
- compromise
- quash
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 528 CrPC
- charge sheet
- cognizance
- settlement
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3461 of 2026
Riyazul And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharad Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Kumar
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, and learned
A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the charge
sheet dated 11.4.2013 and cognizance and summoning order dated
8.1.2024 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.12, Fatehpur as well as entire
proceeding of Case No.21 of 2014 (State vs. Riyazul and others) arising
out of Case Crime No.16-A of 2013 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504
I.P.C., Police Station Bakewar, District Fatehpur.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and
opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court.
Applicants approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this 528 BNSS
application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise
entered between the parties, this Court vide order dated 19.2.2026
directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the
parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated
19.3.2026 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He
further submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 compromised the
matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter
against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite
party no.2 have settled through compromise their dispute and as such
opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the
applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the
applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be
NA528 No. 3461 of 2026
2
served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute
the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the
applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He
submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in
the aforesaid case are quashed.
6. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute
out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs.
State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai
Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan
(2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble 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. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law
expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been
explained in detail.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein
above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties,
this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be
served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
9. Accordingly, the proceedings of charge sheet dated 11.4.2013 and
cognizance and summoning order dated 8.1.2024 passed by A.C.J.M.,
Court No.12, Fatehpur as well as entire proceeding of Case No.21 of
2014 (State vs. Riyazul and others) arising out of Case Crime No.16-A of
2013 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Bakewar,
District Fatehpur is hereby quashed.
10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
April 22, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…