Allahabad High Court
SHANTI DEVI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
A compromise under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is permissible even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, and the pending criminal proceedings may be quashed.
Summary
The applicants, Shanti Devi and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Crimes No. 20 of 2013) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, involving offences under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471. The parties had reached an out‑of‑court compromise on 19 September 2025, and the second respondent consented to withdraw the prosecution. Both the applicants’ counsel and the respondent’s counsel supported the quash‑application, and the High Court examined Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Relying on those decisions, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial. Consequently, the entire proceedings were quashed and the application under Section 528 was allowed.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise under Section 528 CrPC be permitted and the criminal proceedings quashed when the offences involved are cognizable and non‑compoundable (IPC 420, 467, 468, 471)?
- Does the consent of the second respondent to withdraw the case justify the quashing of the pending criminal proceedings?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- quash of criminal proceedings
- IPC 420
- IPC 467
- IPC 468
- IPC 471
- settlement
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41323 of 2025
Shanti Devi And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dan Bahadur Yadav, Parmeshwar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pawan Kumar Yadav, Ravi Kumar
Yadav
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Sakil Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav,
learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ravi
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the
record.
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for
quashing the entire proceeding of Case Nos. 2552 of 2013 and 1817 of 2014,
arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2013, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
I.P.C., Police Station Musajhag, District Budaun, pending in the court of
Judicial Magistrate 1st, Budaun in pursuance of compromise dated
19.09.2025 entered into 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. Applicant
approached this 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 09.12.2025 directed the parties to appear before the
trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court
vide order dated 01.01.2026 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 have settled their dispute through compromise 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
applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served
if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
NA528 No. 41323 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 applicants 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, entire proceeding of Case Nos. 2552 of 2013 and 1817 of
2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2013, under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Musajhag, District Budaun, pending in the court
of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Budaun in pursuance of compromise dated
19.09.2025, are hereby quashed.
9. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
April 16, 2026
Rmk.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…