Allahabad High Court
SHEETLA PRASAD RAI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that, notwithstanding the cognizable and non‑compoundable nature of the offences, a settlement between the parties warrants quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants filed a Section 528 CrPC application seeking to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3143 of 2024, alleging that they had amicably settled the dispute with Opposite Party No.2. The trial court verified the compromise, and Opposite Party No.2 expressed no desire to continue prosecution. Both parties, including the State, consented to the withdrawal of the case. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that prolonging the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court quashed the charge sheet and allowed the application under Section 528 CrPC.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise between parties lead to the quash of criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC when the offences are cognizable and non‑compoundable?
- Whether the court may entertain a withdrawal of prosecution on the basis of settlement in such offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 352, 376, 452, 506, 511, 5504
Subjects
- compromise
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- cognizable offences
- settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 49645 of 2025
Sheetla Prasad Rai And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Upendra Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ravindra Kumar
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Sujeet Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravindra Kumar, 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 charge
sheet dated 17.7.2000 and cognizance/summoning order dated 3.1.2001 as
well as entire proceeding of Crl. Case No.3143 of 2024 (State Vs. Sheetla
Prasad Rai) arising out of Case Crime No. 253 of 2000 under Sections
147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 5504, 326 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur,
District Azamgarh, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.11, Azamgarh.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and
opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court.
Applicants 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 17.02.2026
verified the parties as well as compromise application. He further
submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter
and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the
applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2
have settled through compromise their dispute and as such opposite party
no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants.
NA528 No. 49645 of 2025
2
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 charge-sheet No.106/2019 dated
07.02.2019 as well as Case No.93 of 2019 (State vs. Sameer) arising out
of Case Crime No.69 of 2019 under Sections 452, 376, 511, 352, 323 and
506 I.P.C., Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut are hereby quashed.
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
Checking your session…