Allahabad High Court
SHAHRUKH ALIAS JAFAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S., quashed the criminal proceedings as the parties had amicably settled the dispute, rendering continuation of the trial futile.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking quash of criminal proceedings arising from a charge sheet dated 10 June 2022 for offences under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 IPC. The parties had reached an out‑of‑court compromise on 1 December 2025, and the opposite party 2 consented to withdraw the prosecution. Both sides, including the Additional Government Advocate, supported the quash. The Court examined Supreme Court precedents permitting compromise even in cognizable non‑compoundable offences and held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 permits dismissal when no useful purpose remains. Consequently, the Court quashed the charge sheet and the entire Session Trial No. 287 of 2023. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash criminal proceedings for cognizable non‑compoundable offences under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.
- Whether the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to dismiss a charge sheet and pending trial on the basis of a settlement.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- inherent jurisdiction
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528
- Indian Penal Code
- settlement
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 50425 of 2025
Shahrukh Alias Jafar And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arun Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for applicants, Sri
Anmol Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Arun Kumar, 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 charge sheet dated 10.06.2022 along with
summoning order dated 06.03.2023 as well as entire proceeding of
Session Trial No.287 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.0088 of 2021,
under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Falawada,
District Meerut on the basis of compromise dated 01.12.2025.
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
applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their
NA528 No. 50425 of 2025
2
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 charge sheet dated 10.06.2022 along
with summoning order dated 06.03.2023 as well as entire proceeding of
Session Trial No.287 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.0088 of 2021,
under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Falawada,
District Meerut is hereby quashed.
NA528 No. 50425 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…