Allahabad High Court
RAKESH VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court held that, given the valid compromise and lack of public interest, the criminal proceedings should be quashed under its inherent jurisdiction.
Summary
The applicant, Rakesh Verma, sought to quash Criminal Case No. 3727 of 2008 (State vs. Rakesh Verma) arising from offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, on the ground that the dispute had been amicably settled with the second opposite party. Both parties, through their counsel, submitted that a compromise had been reached and the second opposite party wished to withdraw the prosecution. The learned Additional Government Advocate concurred that there was no reason to continue the proceedings. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Considering the settlement and the lack of any public interest, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. to quash the criminal proceedings. The application was allowed and the case was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can lead to the quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. in cases involving cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under the IPC.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366
Subjects
- compromise
- quashment
- Section 528
- B.N.S.S.
- Indian Penal Code
- cognizable offence
- non‑compoundable offence
- inherent jurisdiction
- settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51357 of 2025
Rakesh Verma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, Rijwan
Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kumar Srivastava, G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant,
Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No.2
and learned AGA for the State.
3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 528 BNSS to quash the impugned entire proceeding of Crl. Case
No.3727 of 2008 (State Vs. Rakesh Verma), arising out of Case Crime
No.148 of 1999, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Uska Bazar, District
Siddharth Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite
party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant
approached this Court by filing this 528 BNSS application with prayer to
quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the
parties, this Court vide order dated 13.1.2026 directed the parties to
appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 12.2.2026 verified the parties as
well as compromise application. He further submitted that applicant and
opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does
not want to proceed the matter against the applicant. He further submitted
that applicant 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 applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready to
NA528 No. 51357 of 2025
2
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 appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute
the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the
applicant 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 Crl. Case No.3727 of 2008 (State Vs.
Rakesh Verma), arising out of Case Crime No.148 of 1999, under
Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar is
hereby quashed.
10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
May 5, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…