Allahabad High Court
DEEPAK MUKHERJEEversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that, in view of the verified compromise and Supreme Court authority, the criminal proceedings must be quashed.
Summary
The applicant, Deepak Mukherjee, filed an application under Section 528 of the Bihar Negotiable Settlement Scheme seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 4157 of 2013) relating to offences under IPC sections 467, 468, 471 and 420. The parties had reached a compromise on 18 September 2025, which was verified by the trial court on 2 January 2026. Both the applicant and the second opposite party, represented by counsel, consented to withdraw the prosecution, arguing that continuation of the case would serve no useful purpose. The High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Consequently, the Court held that the proceedings should be quashed in terms of the verified compromise and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between the parties can lead to the quash of criminal proceedings for offences under IPC sections 467, 468, 471 and 420, which are generally non‑compoundable.
- Whether Section 528 of the Bihar Negotiable Settlement Scheme authorises the court to dismiss such proceedings on the basis of a verified compromise.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Settlement Scheme — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528
- Indian Penal Code
- settlement
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41462 of 2025
Deepak Mukherjee
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ali Hasan, Istiyaq Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jagriti Pandey, Ram Chandra
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused
the record.
3. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S.. has been filed to
quash the criminal proceedings in Case No. 4157 of 2013 (State Vs.
Deeepak Mukherjee), arising out of Case Crime no. 910 of 2012, under
Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Izzatnagar, District
Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
F.T.C., Bareilly including the charge sheet dated 17.10.2012 as well as
cognizance/summoning order dated 12.07.2013, on the basis of
compromise dated 18.09.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite
party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. Applicant
approached this Court by filing this application under Section 528 BNSS
with prayer to quash the proceedings in terms of compromise entered
between the parties and this Court vide order dated 16.12.2025 directed
the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties
and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 02.01.2026
verified the parties as well as compromise application. He further
submitted that applicant 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
NA528 No. 41462 of 2025
2
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.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A.
submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute outside 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, criminal proceedings in Case No. 4157 of 2013 (State Vs.
Deeepak Mukherjee), arising out of Case Crime no. 910 of 2012, under
Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Izzatnagar, District
Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
F.T.C., Bareilly including the charge sheet dated 17.10.2012 as well as
cognizance/summoning order dated 12.07.2013, are hereby quashed in
terms of compromise dated 18.09.2025.
9. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
May 14, 2026
Rmk.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…