Allahabad High Court
SADDAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The Court held that, having verified a genuine compromise between the parties, it may, under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S., quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings even for non‑compoundable offences.
Summary
The applicant, Saddam, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 11 September 2016 and the related cognizance order in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 323, 324, 308 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant and the second opposite party had reached an out‑of‑court settlement, which was verified by the trial court on 19 January 2026. Both the applicant’s counsel and the State’s Additional Government Advocate submitted that the compromise rendered further prosecution unnecessary. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even for certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, the High Court considered whether its inherent jurisdiction could be invoked to terminate the proceedings. The Court concluded that continuing the case would serve no useful purpose and, therefore, quashed the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. was consequently allowed.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise between parties be permitted to quash criminal proceedings for offences that are cognizable and non‑compoundable under the IPC?
- Does the High Court have inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order after verification of a settlement?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 324, 504
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceedings
- inherent jurisdiction
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 B.N.S.S.
- Indian Penal Code
- settlement verification
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39741 of 2025
Saddam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Alok Kumar Gupta, Aman Mishra,
G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Case called out in the revised list. None is present on behalf opposite
party No.2. However, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A.
for the State are present.
3. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicants and
learned AGA for the State.
4. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 528 BNSS to quash the charge sheet dated 11.9.2016 along
with cognizance order dated 7.10.2016 as well as entire criminal
proceeding of S.T. No.320 of 2016 (State Vs. Saddam), arising out of
Case Crime No.244 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504 I.P.C.,
P.S. Dhanaura, District Amroha.
5. 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 Court by filing 528 BNSS application with
prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between
the parties, this Court vide order dated 9.12.2025 directed the parties to
appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 19.1.2026 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
NA528 No. 39741 of 2025
2
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 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.
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 11.9.2016 along
with cognizance order dated 7.10.2016 as well as entire criminal
proceeding of S.T. No.320 of 2016 (State Vs. Saddam), arising out of
Case Crime No.244 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504 I.P.C.,
P.S. Dhanaura, District Amroha 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…