Allahabad High Court
LOKENDR ALIAS LOKENDR SINGH PUNDHIR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The Court held that a valid compromise between the parties warrants the quashing of the criminal proceedings even though the offences are cognizable and non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the criminal proceedings arising from Charge Sheet No. 34 of 2016 (Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC) on the ground that they had reached an out‑of‑court settlement with the opposite party. The trial court verified the parties and the compromise deed dated 04‑09‑2025. Both parties, through their counsel, affirmed that the dispute was settled and the opposite party wished to withdraw the prosecution. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire proceeding and allowed the application under Section 528.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash proceedings in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under the IPC.
- Whether Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. empowers the court to dismiss a charge sheet on the basis of a settlement deed.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 325, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528
- High Court of Allahabad
- Indian Penal Code
- settlement deed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 50593 of 2025
Lokendr Alias Lokendr Singh Pundhir And 3
Others .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satyendra Nath Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajesh Kumar Sharma, G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants today is taken
on record.
2. Heard Sri Satyendra Nath Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants,
Neel Kant Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Rajesh
Kumar Sharma, 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 entire proceeding of Charge Sheet No. 34 of 2016 dated
07.05.2016 in Case No. 1645 of 2016 (State Vs. Lokendra and others),
arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 504,
506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Vijaigarh, District Aligarh in terms of
compromise deed dated 04.09.2025.
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 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 14.01.2026
directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the
parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated
10.03.2026 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He
further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their
NA528 No. 50593 of 2025
2
dispute through 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 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, entire proceeding of Charge Sheet No. 34 of 2016 dated
07.05.2016 in Case No. 1645 of 2016 (State Vs. Lokendra and others),
arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 504,
506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Vijaigarh, District Aligarh, are hereby
quashed in terms of compromise.
9. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
May 7, 2026
Rmk.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…