Allahabad High Court

SATYA PRIYA GAUTAM @ ANSHU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court held that, in view of the parties' settlement and Supreme Court authority, the criminal proceedings should be quashed under its inherent jurisdiction.

Summary

The applicants, Satya Priya Gautam @ Anshu and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 2635 of 2018) arising from offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. They claimed that the dispute had been amicably settled by a compromise dated 15 July 2024, and the second respondent agreed to withdraw the prosecution. The trial court verified the compromise, and the opposite party raised no objection to quashing the case. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even in certain cognizable, non‑compoundable offences, the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction. It held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and consequently quashed the proceedings. The application under Section 528 was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, which are cognizable and non‑compoundable offences.
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash such proceedings.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506

Subjects

compromise
criminal procedure
Section 528
quash of proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
inherent jurisdiction
IPC 323
IPC 504
IPC 506

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51034 of 2025

Satya Priya Gautam @ Anshu And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Gopal Singh, Sudhir Kumar
Singh Parmar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amar Chandra, G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh Parmar, learned counsel for applicants,
Sri Amar Chandra, 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 the entire proceeding of Case No. 2635
of 2018 (State Vs. Satya Priya Gautam@ Anshu and Another) arising out of
Case Crime No. 415 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police
Station Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur on the basis of compromise dated
15.07.2024.

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
7.8.2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for
verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide
order dated 29.8.2025 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. 51034 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. 2635 of 2018 (State Vs. Satya
Priya Gautam@ Anshu and Another) arising out of Case Crime No. 415 of
2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Tilhar, District
Shahjahanpur is hereby quashed.
NA528 No. 51034 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…