Allahabad High Court

XX JUVENILE AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The High Court held that, in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, a criminal case may be quashed when the parties have reached a settlement, and therefore allowed the application to quash the charge sheet.

Summary

The applicants, two juveniles, filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 08‑07‑2025 in Criminal Case No. 62 of 2024, which was pending before the Juvenile Justice Board. The charge sheet arose from offences under Sections 147, 308, 427, 506, 323, 336 and 498‑A IPC. A coordinate bench of the High Court had earlier directed the parties to file a compromise deed, which was verified by the Juvenile Justice Board on 16‑12‑2025. The State raised no objection to the compromise. Relying on a line of Supreme Court decisions that allow quashing of criminal proceedings where the parties have settled their disputes, the Court held that the present case warranted the exercise of its power to quash. Consequently, the application was allowed and the entire proceeding, including the charge sheet, was quashed.

Issues considered

Can a criminal proceeding be quashed on the basis of a settlement/compromise deed verified by the court under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Does the settlement between parties in a case involving juveniles extinguish the criminal liability and justify quashing of the charge sheet?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 528

Subjects

settlement
quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528
Juvenile Justice Board
compromise deed
charge sheet
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46373 of 2025

Xx Juvenile And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pankaj Yadav

Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Rakesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pradep
Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Yadav, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel
for the State and perused the records.

3. The present application under Sections 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicants XX Juvenile son of Yogesh Kumar and XX Juvenile son of
Yogesh Kumar, with the prayer to allow the present application and
quash the entire proceeding, charge sheet dated 08.07.2025 in Criminal
Case No. 62 of 2024, State Vs. Abhishek @ Raj and another, arising out
of case crime No. 223 of 2023, under Sections 147, 308, 427, 506, 323,
336, 498-A I.P.C. P.S.- Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in
the court of Juvenile Justice Board in terms of compromise between the
parties and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the said
case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants states that an order was passed by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025 directing the
applicants to file the said compromise deed before the court concerned
which was to be verified by the court concerned. In pursuance of the said
order, the court concerned vide order dated 16.12.2025 verified the said
compromise, copy of the same is on record. The same is not disputed by
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
NA528 No. 46373 of 2025
2

5. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the said proposition.

6. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of
(1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4
SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation :
(2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16
SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5)
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC
278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur
and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has
held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can
be quashed.

7. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court
on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising
powers by this Court to quash the proceedings, charge sheet as well as
cognizance/summoning order as prayed for by the applicant(s).

8. The present application is allowed.

9. The entire proceeding, charge sheet dated 08.07.2025 of the aforesaid
case are hereby quashed.

(Samit Gopal,J.)
May 18, 2026
M. ARIF

Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…