JAYPALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 48437 of 2025

Jaypal
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Mohammad Waseem
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   Zulekha Begum, G.A.

Court No. - 79
                    HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt.
Zulekha Begum, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the
impugned      charge    sheet    dated    20.12.2024    as    well   as
cognizance//summoning order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Judicial
Magistrate, Faridpur, District Bareilly in Case No.1477/2024 (S.T.
No.64/2025) (State Vs. Jaypal) arising out of Case Crime No.717 of 2024
under Sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 109, 118(1) B.N.S., Police Station
Fareedupur, District Bareilly, pending before Additional District
Judge/F.T.C., District Bareilly.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite
party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant
approached this Hon'ble 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 8.1.2026 directed the parties to
appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 07.03.2026 verified the parties as
well as compromise application. He further submitted that applicant and
opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does
not want to proceed the matter against the applicant. He further submitted
that applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise
                                                     NA528 No. 48437 of 2025
                               2


their dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the
aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no.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.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute
the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the
applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He
submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in
the aforesaid case are quashed.

6. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute
out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly, the proceedings of mpugned charge sheet dated
20.12.2024 as well as cognizance//summoning order dated 23.12.2024
passed by Judicial Magistrate, Faridpur, District Bareilly in Case
No.1477/2024 (S.T. No.64/2025) (State Vs. Jaypal) arising out of Case
Crime No.717 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 109, 118(1)
B.N.S., Police Station Fareedupur, District Bareilly, pending before
Additional District Judge/F.T.C., District Bareilly is hereby quashed.
                                                                                        NA528 No. 48437 of 2025
                                                                  3


                                    10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.



                                                                                       (Chawan Prakash,J.)
                                    April 23, 2026
                                    Md Faisal




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad