Allahabad High Court
AMIR @ AMAR AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that, in view of the parties' settlement and established Supreme Court jurisprudence, the criminal proceedings could be quashed under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 1335 of 2025) arising from offences under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3) and 324(4) of the BNSS. The parties had reached a compromise on 12 November 2025, and the co‑accused (opposite party No. 2) also expressed a desire to withdraw the prosecution. Both the applicants' counsel and the opposite party’s counsel agreed that there was no objection to quashing the case. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even for certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Considering the settlement and the lack of any public interest, the court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed and the application under Section 528 was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between the parties can be the basis for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.
- Whether the court has inherent jurisdiction to quash offences that are cognizable and non‑compoundable on the ground of settlement.
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 BNSS
- inherent jurisdiction
- non‑compoundable offences
- settlement
- criminal law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 49781 of 2025
Amir @ Amar And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Padmaker Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rakesh Kumar Shukla, G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for applicants, Sri
Dheeraj Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State.
3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 528 BNSS to quash entire proceeding of Case No.1335 of
2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Amir@Amar) arising out of Case Crime No.369
of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3), 324(4) B.N.S., Police
Station Sahaswan, District Badaun on the basis of compromise dated
12.11.2025.
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 Court by filing this Application 528 BNSS
No.18708 of 2019 with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of
compromise entered between the parties, this Court vide order dated
14.1.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for
verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide
order dated 3.2.2026 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
NA528 No. 49781 of 2025
2
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. Opposite party no.2 is 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.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute
the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the
applicants 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 Case No.1335 of 2025 (State of U.P.
Vs. Amir@Amar) arising out of Case Crime No.369 of 2024, under
Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3), 324(4) B.N.S., Police Station Sahaswan,
District Badaun is hereby quashed.
NA528 No. 49781 of 2025
3
10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
May 7, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…