Allahabad High Court
JUGENDRA PAL SINGH AND 8 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that the criminal proceedings are quashed as the parties have settled their dispute, even though the offences are non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 20880 of 2025, which involved offences under Sections 406, 147, 504, 506 and 307 IPC, on the ground that a compromise had been reached and verified by the trial court. The High Court, after noting a coordinate bench order directing verification of the compromise, observed that Supreme Court precedents allow compromise even for certain non‑compoundable offences. Considering that the parties had settled their dispute and that no public interest would be served by continuing the trial, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings. The State and the opposite party raised no objection to the quashment. The application was therefore allowed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted and the criminal proceedings quashed in cases involving non‑compoundable offences under Sections 406, 147, 504, 506 and 307 IPC.
- Whether Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. empowers the High Court to quash proceedings on the basis of a verified compromise.
- Whether verification of the compromise by the trial court suffices to extinguish the criminal liability.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 307, 406, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 B.N.S.S.
- IPC
- settlement
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 44517 of 2025
Jugendra Pal Singh And 8 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar, Divakar Tripathi, Law Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Om Narayan Pandey
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as
perused the entire material available on record.
2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer
to quash the charge-sheet dated 7th February, 2025, cognizance/summoning
order dated 21st May, 2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No. 20880 of 2025 (State Vs. Jugendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of
Case Crime No. 93 of 2024, under Sections 406, 147, 504, 506 and 307
I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Shahjahanpur, pending in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur on the basis of compromised so
arrived at between the parties.
3. While entertaining the present criminal application, a Coordinate Bench of
this Court passed the order dated 29th July, 2026 directing the applicants to
file the compromise so entered into between the parties before the trial court
for its verification and the trial court was inturn directed to verify the same.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the trial court vide order dated
24th August, , 2026 has verified the compromise so arrived at between the
parties, a copy of which has been brought on record along with the second
supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the
Court today which is taken on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromised so
arrived at between the parties and the same has also been verified by the
court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be may be
quashed by this Court.
NA528 No. 44517 of 2025
2
6. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2
have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC
675,
(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC
677,
(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
(vi).Dimpey Gujral W/o Vivek Gujral & Others Vs. Union Territory Thru.
Administrator Chandigarh & Others; (2013) 11 SCC 497,
(vii). H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 38 ,
and
(viii). Naushey Ali & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another; (2025) 4
SCC 78.
8. In the aforesaid judgments, the 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. &
Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court
in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein
above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the
court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by
prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the
parties have already settled their dispute.
10. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 20880 of 2025
(State Vs. Jugendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 93 of
2024, under Sections 406, 147, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station-
Kotwali, District-Shahjahanpur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Shahjahanpur are hereby quashed.
11. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order
NA528 No. 44517 of 2025
3
as to costs.
September 18, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…