Allahabad High Court

DHARMPAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 26 April 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

A compromise between the parties can be permitted and the criminal proceedings quashed even for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences where the compromise is verified and continuation serves no useful purpose.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding (Criminal Case No. 13781 of 2025) arising from a charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120B of the IPC. The parties had reached a compromise on 28‑08‑2025, which was verified by the trial court on 23‑01‑2026. Both the applicants' counsel and the State’s counsel submitted that the dispute was settled out of court and the prosecution should be withdrawn. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court quashed the cognizance order and the entire proceeding and allowed the application under Section 528.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted and the criminal proceedings quashed in cases involving cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under the IPC.
Whether the verification of the compromise by the trial court suffices to bar further prosecution.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506

Subjects

compromise
non‑compoundable offences
quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528 BNSS
Indian Penal Code
cognizance order
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41950 of 2025

Dharmpal And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Komal Prasad Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Jalaj Kumar Kushwaha, G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Komal Prasad Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants,
learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Jalaj Kumar Kushwaha,
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 to
quash the impugned cognizance order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah as well as the entire proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 13781 of 2025 (State Vs. Dharmpal and others),
arising out Charge sheet dated 18.05.2023, arising out of Case Crime No.
361 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B I.P.C., Police
Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah on the basis of compromise dated
28.08.2025.

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 under 528
BNSS with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise
entered between the parties and this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025
directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the
parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated
23.01.2026 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
NA528 No. 41950 of 2025
2

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 counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA
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, cognizance order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah as well as the entire proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 13781 of 2025 (State Vs. Dharmpal and others),
arising out Charge sheet dated 18.05.2023, arising out of Case Crime No.
361 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B I.P.C., Police
Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, are hereby quashed in terms of
compromise dated 28.08.2025.

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

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
April 27, 2026
Rmk.

Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…