Allahabad High Court
SHAINKYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that a compromise between the parties is permissible even for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences and therefore quashed the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 511 of 2021) arising from offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The parties had reached an out‑of‑court compromise on 21 August 2025, which was verified by the trial court. Both the opposing party and the State’s Advocate General supported the withdrawal of the prosecution. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court quashed the entire proceedings and allowed the Section 528 application.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, which are cognizable and non‑compoundable.
- Whether an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceedings
- Section 528
- non‑compoundable offences
- IPC
- High Court
- Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 48645 of 2025
Shainky
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Navin Kumar Srivastava, Vipin Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Dulare Chauhan
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit,
which is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Ram Dulare Chauhan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for
quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 511 of 2021 (State Vs.
Sainky and another), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 155 of
2020, pending in the court of 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ghaziabad, on the basis of compromise dated 21.08.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and
opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court.
Applicant approached this 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 05.01.2026 directed the parties to
appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 27.01.2026 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 their dispute through
NA528 No. 48645 of 2025
2
compromise 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 AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2
submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court,
hence, no reason to proceed further.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Accordingly, entire proceedings of Case No. 511 of 2021 (State Vs.
Sainky and another), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 155 of
2020, pending in the court of learned 6th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed in terms of compromise dated
21.08.2025.
9. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
April 27, 2026
v.k. updh.
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…