Allahabad High Court
DANISH AND 9 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that, given the parties' settlement, the charge sheet, cognizance order, and all related proceedings must be quashed.
Summary
The applicants, Danish and nine others, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet and related proceedings in a criminal case pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑III, Rampur. The applicants and the second opposite party had settled their dispute out of court, and the second opposite party expressed willingness to withdraw the prosecution. The learned A.G.A. supported the compromise, arguing that continuation of the case would serve no useful purpose. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that the settlement justified quashing the charge sheet, cognizance order, and the entire proceedings. Consequently, the application was allowed and the criminal proceedings were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash criminal proceedings in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences under Section 528 of the BNSS.
- 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
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74, 85
- B.N.S.S. (Bihar Niyam Sahayata Scheme) — s. 528
- D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
- Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of charge sheet
- cognizable offence
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- D.P. Act
- Muslim Women Protection Act
- settlement
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40181 of 2026
Danish And 9 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Yadav, Krishna
Kant Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with
the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet No.06 of 2026 dated
27.01.2026 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 12.05.2026
and entire proceedings of Case No.1219 of 2026, arising out of case
Crime No.127 of 2026, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 74 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3/4 Muslim
Women (Protection of Right on Marriage), 2019, Police Station Bhot,
District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-III, Rampur.
3. 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 Application under Section 528
BNSS No. 25755 of 2026 with the prayer to quash the proceedings in
terms of compromise entered between the parties and this Court vide
order dated 16.07.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court
for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court
vide order dated 07.08.2026 verified the parties as well as compromise
application. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2
have settled their dispute through compromise and, as such, opposite
party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants.
NA528 No. 40181 of 2026
2
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 A.G.A. 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, impugned charge sheet No.06 of 2026 dated 27.01.2026
as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 12.05.2026 and entire
proceedings of Case No.1219 of 2026, arising out of case Crime No.127
of 2026, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 74 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3/4 Muslim Women
(Protection of Right on Marriage), 2019, Police Station Bhot, District
Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III,
Rampur, are hereby quashed in terms of compromise.
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 29, 2026
Rmk.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…