Allahabad High Court
TIPU @ AHTESHAM ALI AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The Court held that a valid compromise between the parties, even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, justifies quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants, Tipu and others, filed a Section 528 B.N.S.S. application seeking to quash the criminal proceeding S.T. No.1915 of 2024 (State vs. Tipu et al.) arising from a 2018 case under IPC sections 307, 504 and 506. The parties had amicably settled the dispute out of court, and the opposite party No.2 consented to withdraw the prosecution. The High Court examined precedents allowing compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences and found no useful purpose in continuing the trial. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings and allowed the Section 528 application. The decision rests on the principle that a lawful compromise can extinguish prosecution in such offences.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash proceedings in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC.
- Whether Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code authorises the court to dismiss the case on the basis of a settlement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash
- Section 528 CrPC
- non‑compoundable offence
- IPC 307
- IPC 504
- IPC 506
- settlement
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3834 of 2026
Tipu @ Ahtesham Ali And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saif Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Safi Ali, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rakeh
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 entire
proceeding of S.T. No.1915 of 2024 (State vs. Tipu and others) arising
out of Case Crime No.464 of 2018 under Sections 307, 504 and 506
I.P.C., Police Station Khuldabad, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court
of Special Judge POCSO II, Allahabad.
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 30.1.2026
directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the
parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated
21.2.2026 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 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
NA528 No. 3834 of 2026
2
applicants 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 S.T. No.1915 of 2024 (State vs. Tipu
and others) arising out of Case Crime No.464 of 2018 under Sections 307,
504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khuldabad, District Prayagraj 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…