Allahabad High Court
AJEET KATHERIA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 CrPC and quashed the charge sheet and related proceedings on account of the parties’ compromise.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash Charge Sheet No.324 of 2017 and the related proceedings arising from offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The parties had entered into a compromise on 6 June 2025, which was verified by the trial court on 30 April 2026. Both the State and the opposite party consented to withdraw the prosecution, stating that continuation of the case would serve no useful purpose. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even for certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Relying on its inherent jurisdiction, the Court held that the compromise justified quashing the criminal proceedings. Consequently, the application under Section 528 was allowed and the charge sheet and all related orders were set aside.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise between parties lead to the quash of criminal proceedings for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under Section 528 of the CrPC?
- Does the High Court have inherent jurisdiction to quash such proceedings despite the nature of the offences?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 528 CrPC
- non‑compoundable offences
- High Court
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42152 of 2025
Ajeet Katheria And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhupendra Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Srivastava,
Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Bhupendra Pal, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Akhilesh
Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 528 BNSS to quash the Charge Sheet No.324 of 2017 dated
29.06.2017 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 10.08.2020 as
well as entire proceeding of Case No.10828 of 2020 (State Vs. Ajeet
Katheriya and others) arising out of Case Crime No.424 of 2017, under
Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Kalyanpur, District
Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 06.06.2025.
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 528 BNSS application
with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered
between the parties, this Court vide order dated 21.4.2026 directed the
parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and
compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 30.4.2026 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
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
NA528 No. 42152 of 2025
2
the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is
allowed to go on.
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, the proceedings of Charge Sheet No.324 of 2017 dated
29.06.2017 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 10.08.2020 as
well as entire proceeding of Case No.10828 of 2020 (State Vs. Ajeet
Katheriya and others) arising out of Case Crime No.424 of 2017, under
Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Kalyanpur, District
Kanpur Nagar is hereby quashed.
9. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
May 7, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…