Allahabad High Court
MOHIT PANWAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court held that, where a valid compromise is verified, criminal proceedings and the charge sheet may be quashed even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
Summary
The applicants filed a Section 528 B.N.S.S. application seeking to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings (Case No. 10337 of 2025) arising from offences under Sections 221, 121(1), 132, 352 and 351(3). The parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the trial court verified the compromise. Both the co‑complainant and the State agreed that there was no objection to quashing the case. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings were quashed and the 528 application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between the parties can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings and the charge sheet under Section 528 B.N.S.S. for offences that are cognizable and non‑compoundable.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 121(1), 132, 221, 351(3), 352
Subjects
- compromise
- criminal procedure
- Section 528
- quash charge sheet
- non‑compoundable offences
- settlement
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40744 of 2025
Mohit Panwar And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shailesh Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Shailesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and
learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the charge
sheet dated 10.8.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Crl. Case No.10337
of 2025 (State vs. Mohit Panwar & Others) arising out of Case Crime
No.310 of 2025 under Sections 221, 121(1), 132, 352, 351(3) B.N.S.,
Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and
opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court.
Applicant 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 9.3.2026 directed
the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties
and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 18.3.2026
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 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.
NA528 No. 40744 of 2025
2
4. 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.
5. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute
out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Accordingly, the proceedings of Crl. Case No.10337 of 2025 (State vs.
Mohit Panwar & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.310 of 2025 under
Sections 221, 121(1), 132, 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Jhinjhana,
District Shamli and also to quash the charge sheet dated 10.8.2025is
hereby quashed.
9. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
April 20, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…