Allahabad High Court
DEEPAK YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court held that where the parties have settled and there is no useful purpose in continuing the prosecution, the proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.
Summary
The applicant, Deepak Yadav, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 4 July 2025 and the related criminal proceedings (Case No. 573 of 2026) arising from offences under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the BNSS. The applicant and the second opposite party had amicably settled the dispute and the trial court verified the compromise. Both parties, including the State’s Additional Government Advocate, consented to the quashment. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Finding no useful purpose in continuing the prosecution, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS and ordered the charge sheet and the entire proceeding to be quashed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between the parties can justify quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS for offences including Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(2) and 352.
- Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to set aside a charge sheet and cognizance order after a settlement.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 115(2), 191(2), 351(2), 352, 528
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 528 BNSS
- non‑compoundable offences
- charge sheet
- settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3512 of 2026
Deepak Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Kashi Nath Singh Yadav, G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Dinesh
Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kashi Nath Yadav, learned
counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State.
3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 528 BNSS to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 4.7.2025
along with cognizance/summoning order dated 6.1.2026 as well as entire
proceeding of Case No.573 of 2026 (State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 191(2),
115(2), 351(2), 352 B.N.S., P.S. Sindhaura, District Varanasi.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite
party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant
approached this 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 5.2.2026 directed the parties to appear
before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 10.2.2026 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 applicant. He further submitted
that applicant 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
NA528 No. 3512 of 2026
2
withdraw the prosecution of the applicant and in view of the compromise,
no fruitful purpose would be 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 4.7.2025 along with
cognizance/summoning order dated 6.1.2026 as well as entire proceeding
of Case No.573 of 2026 (State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and others),
arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2),
351(2), 352 B.N.S., P.S. Sindhaura, District Varanasi is hereby quashed.
10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
May 5, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…