Allahabad High Court
ANUJ AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court held that a compromise is permissible even for the cognizable, non‑compoundable offences involved and consequently quashed the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash criminal proceedings (S.T. No.1253 of 2025) arising from a case involving offences under Sections 109(1), 333, 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The applicants and the opposing parties (Nos.2 and 3) had reached an out‑of‑court settlement and requested withdrawal of the prosecution. Both sides argued that the compromise should be respected even though the offences are cognizable and non‑compoundable. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in certain cognizable, non‑compoundable offences. Finding that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose, the Court quashed the proceedings in terms of the compromise. The application under Section 528 was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of such a compromise.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- criminal procedure
- Section 528
- quash of proceedings
- High Court judgment
- settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 47298 of 2025
Anuj And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Madhava Nand Shukla
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Madhava
Nand Shukla, 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 proceeding in S.T. No. 1253 of 2025 (State Vs. Anuj and others),
arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 333, 352,
351(3), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Sikhera, District Muzaffar Nagar,
pending before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar and
charge sheet dated 27.04.2025 as well as cognizance order dated 06.06.2025
in terms of compromise.
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 18.12.2025 directed the
parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and
compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 23.01.2026 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
NA528 No. 47298 of 2025
2
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
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, proceeding in S.T. No. 1253 of 2025 (State Vs. Anuj and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2025, under Sections 109(1),
333, 352, 351(3), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Sikhera, District Muzaffar
Nagar, pending before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar
and charge sheet dated 27.04.2025 as well as cognizance order dated
06.06.2025, are hereby quashed in terms of compromise.
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
April 27, 2026 (Chawan Prakash,J.)
Rmk.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…