Allahabad High Court
SHAHBAZ AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court held that, in view of the verified compromise and applicable Supreme Court jurisprudence, the charge sheet and cognizance order must be quashed.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S. seeking to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a criminal case arising from offences under Sections 191(2), 190, 109(1), 352 and 118(1) of the B.N.S. on the ground that the dispute had been settled by compromise between the parties. The trial court verified the compromise and the opposite party expressed its willingness to withdraw the prosecution. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even for certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the charge sheet and cognizance order were quashed in terms of the compromise dated 01‑12‑2025. The application under Section 528 was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash proceedings in offences that are cognizable and non‑compoundable under the B.N.S.
- Whether Section 528 of the B.N.S. authorises the High Court to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order on the basis of a court‑verified compromise.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 118(1), 190, 191(2), 352, 528
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of charge sheet
- Section 528
- non‑compoundable offences
- criminal procedure
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 50056 of 2025
Shahbaz And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhananjay Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anil
Kumar Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
3. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for
quashing the charge sheet no. 152 of 2025 dated 31.08.2025 as well as
cognizance order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bijnor in Case No. 14172 of 2025 (State vs. Shahbaj and
other), arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2025 under Sections 191(2),
190, 109(1), 352, 118(1) B.N.S. at P.S.- Kiratpur, District Bijnor pending
in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor on the basis of
compromise.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and
opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court.
Applicants have approached this Court by filing this application under
Section 528 BNSS with prayer to quash the proceedings in terms of
compromise entered between the parties and this Court vide order dated
13.01.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for
verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide
order dated 03.04.2026 verified the parties as well as compromise
application. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2
have settled their dispute through compromise and, as such, opposite
party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants.
NA528 No. 50056 of 2025
2
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 for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A.
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, charge sheet no. 152 of 2025 dated 31.08.2025 as well as
cognizance order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bijnor in Case No. 14172 of 2025 (State vs. Shahbaj and
other), arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2025 under Sections 191(2),
190, 109(1), 352, 118(1) B.N.S. at P.S.- Kiratpur, District Bijnor pending
in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, are hereby
quashed in terms of compromise dated 01.12.2025.
9. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
May 14, 2026
Rmk.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…