Allahabad High Court
RAJVEER AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings as the parties had settled the dispute and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court entertained an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Rajveer and seven others seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 4280 of 2025) relating to offences under IPC sections 147, 323, 325, 352, 504 and 506. The applicants asserted that they had reached an amicable settlement with the State (opposite party 2) and that a compromise dated 19 September 2025 had been verified by the trial court. The State, through its AGA, agreed that the dispute was settled and that there was no justification for continuing the prosecution. The Court relied on Supreme Court decisions permitting compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Finding that continuation of the case would serve no useful purpose, the Court quashed the entire proceedings. The application under Section 528 was allowed.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise between the parties be the basis for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the CrPC, even when the offences are cognizable and non‑compoundable?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 325, 352, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 CrPC
- non‑compoundable offences
- cognizable offences
- settlement
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42208 of 2025
Rajveer And 7 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anshu Shahi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Raj Pal, Santosh Chaubey, G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Anshu Shahi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Santosh
Chaubey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for
quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 4280 of 2025 (State Vs.
Rajveer and others), under Sections 147, 323, 325, 352, 504, 506 I.P.C.,
Police Station Chhata, District Mathura, arising out of Case Crime No.
271 of 2024, as well as summoning order dated 17.05.2025, pending in
the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Chhata,
District Mathura, on the basis of compromise dated 19.09.2025.
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 12.03.2026 directed the parties to
appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 31.03.2026 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
NA528 No. 42208 of 2025
2
is ready 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.
4. 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, entire proceedings of aforesaid case, are hereby quashed
in terms of compromise dated 19.09.2025.
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
April 27, 2026
v.k. updh.
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…