Allahabad High Court
VINOD KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DEEPAK VERMA
Holding
The court held that the compromise is permissible even for the non‑compoundable offences and therefore quashed the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the cognizance and summoning order in a criminal complaint (Case No. 304 of 2022) involving offences under Sections 392, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The parties had reached an out‑of‑court compromise, and the opposite party indicated it would withdraw the prosecution. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Relying on those decisions, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the entire criminal proceedings were quashed and the application under Section 528 was allowed.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise be effected between parties for offences punishable under Sections 392, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, which are generally non‑compoundable?
- Whether the High Court may quash the cognizance and summoning order under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of such a compromise?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 392, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceedings
- cognizance
- settlement
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37199 of 2026
Vinod Kumar And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the impugned
cognizance/summoning order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned
Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area/IIInd Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Farrukhabad, as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.
304 of 2022 (Anita Devi Vs. Vinod Kumar and others) for the offence
punishable under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali
Mohammadabad, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Special
Judge Dacoity Affected Area/IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Farrukhabad, on the basis of the compromise arrived between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite
party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Earlier, the
Applicants approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Application under
section BNSS No.6360 of 2026 with prayer to quash the proceedings on
terms of compromise entered between the parties. The Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 16.02.2026 sent the matter to trial court for
verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order
dated 07.03.2026 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He
further submitted that applicants 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
NA528 No. 37199 of 2026
2
have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such
opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the
applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the
applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be
served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
4. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out
of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 304 of 2022
(Anita Devi Vs. Vinod Kumar and others) for the offence punishable under
Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Mohammadabad,
District Farrukhabad, is hereby quashed.
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 8, 2026
Meenu Singh
Digitally signed by :-
MEENU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…