Allahabad High Court

ASIF ALI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court held that, given the verified compromise and applicable Supreme Court precedents, the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

Summary

The applicants, Asif Ali and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash pending criminal proceedings arising from cases under IPC sections 498A, 323, 376, 511 and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The parties had amicably settled the dispute through a compromise, which was verified by the trial court. The State did not oppose the quash. Relying on Supreme Court decisions that permit compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, the High Court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the charge sheets and cognizance orders were quashed, and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Can a compromise between parties lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS in cases involving cognizable and non‑compoundable offences?
Whether the High Court may set aside charge sheets and cognizance orders after verification of a compromise.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 376, 498A, 511

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528 BNSS
non‑compoundable offences
IPC
D.P. Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41861 of 2026

Asif Ali And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Shahibe Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Shahibe Alam, learned counsel for applicants and
learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been
filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 288 of
2016 dated 28.11.2016, summoning/cognizance order dated 25.01.2017
and the entire proceeding of S.T. No. 1159 of 2017 (State vs. Amir and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 335 of 2016, under Section 498A,
323, 376, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, against applicant Nos. 2 & 3
and charge sheet dated 07.01.2017 and summoning/cognizance order
dated 17.05.2017, under Section 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act
against applicant No. 1 Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut,
pending in the Court of ADJ FTC (CAW), Meerut.

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 this application with prayer to
quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the
parties, this Court vide order dated 30.7.2026 passed in Application U/S
528 BNSS No.17845 of 2026, directed the parties to appear before the
trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial
court vide order dated 13.5.2026 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. 41861 of 2026
2

submitted that applicants 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.

4. Learned AGA 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 he has no objection, if the
proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

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, the charge sheet No. 288 of 2016 dated 28.11.2016,
summoning/cognizance order dated 25.01.2017 and the entire proceeding
of S.T. No. 1159 of 2017 (State vs. Amir and others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 335 of 2016, under Section 498A, 323, 376, 511 IPC and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act, against applicant Nos. 2 & 3 and charge sheet dated
07.01.2017 and summoning/cognizance order dated 17.05.2017, under
Section 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant No. 1
Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut are hereby quashed in respect
of present applicants.
NA528 No. 41861 of 2026
3

8. This application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is accordingly
allowed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 30, 2026
Md Faisal

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…