Allahabad High Court
VINOD KUMAR PATEL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is allowed and the charge sheet and related proceedings are quashed on the basis of the compromise.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash a charge sheet and related orders dated January‑February 2007 in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 195, 211, 218, 220, 323, 343 and 120B of the IPC. They asserted that the dispute with the State and two other parties had been settled by a compromise dated 5 August 2025, and that the opposing parties were willing to withdraw the prosecution. The respondents concurred, stating that the matter was resolved out of court and there was no reason to continue the proceedings. The High Court examined precedent, notably Supreme Court decisions allowing compromise even for certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, and held that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court quashed the charge sheet and all related proceedings and allowed the application under Section 528.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between the parties can be permitted to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for offences that are cognizable and non‑compoundable.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside a charge sheet and related orders on the basis of a compromise.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 195, 211, 218, 220, 323, 343
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528
- non‑compoundable offences
- charge sheet
- High Court of Allahabad
- IPC sections
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 43202 of 2025
Vinod Kumar Patel And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Krishna Kumar, Vijay Kumar
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Chandan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jyoti
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Vijay Kumar,
learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed to
quash the impugned charge sheet dated 12.01.2007 & 19.01.2007,
cognizance order/summoning order dated 29.01.2007 (corrected on
12.02.2007) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh against the
applicant no. 1, under Sections 147, 195, 211, 218, 220, 323, 343, 120B
I.P.C. as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 1974 of 2007 (State Vs.
Sudhir & another), arising out of Case Crime No. 434 of 1999, Police
Station Jawan, District Aligarh, pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate-III, Aligarh on the basis of compromise dated 05.08.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite
party nos.2 and 3 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 04.02.2026 verified the
parties as well as compromise application. He further submitted that
applicants and opposite party nos.2 and 3 compromised the matter and
opposite party Nos.2 and 3 does not want to proceed the matter against the
applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 and
3 have settled their dispute through compromise and, as such, opposite party
nos.2 and 3 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants.
Opposite party nos.2 and 3 are ready to withdraw the prosecution of the
applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be
NA528 No. 43202 of 2025
2
served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and 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, charge sheet dated 12.01.2007 & 19.01.2007, cognizance
order/summoning order dated 29.01.2007 (corrected on 12.02.2007) passed
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh against the applicant no. 1,
under Sections 147, 195, 211, 218, 220, 323, 343, 120B I.P.C. as well as
entire proceeding of Case No. 1974 of 2007 (State Vs. Sudhir & another),
arising out of Case Crime No. 434 of 1999, Police Station Jawan, District
Aligarh, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Aligarh, are
hereby quashed in terms of compromise dated 05.08.2025.
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
April 27, 2026
Rmk.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…