Allahabad High Court
DINESH KUMAR YADVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that a verified compromise between the parties warrants the quashing of the criminal proceedings despite the offences being cognizable and non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicant, Dinesh Kumar Yadav, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 52021 of 2025, which involved offences under Sections 308(4) and 351(2) of the BNSS. A compromise between the parties had been reached and subsequently verified by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, as directed by a coordinate bench of the High Court. Both the applicant’s counsel and the State’s Additional Government Advocate consented to the quashing of the case. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments that permit compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Considering the verified compromise and the lack of any public interest in continuing the trial, the Court held that the proceedings should be terminated. Consequently, the entire criminal case was quashed and the application was allowed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a court‑verified compromise between the parties can be the basis for quashing criminal proceedings in offences under Sections 308(4) and 351(2) of the BNSS, which are cognizable and non‑compoundable.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS upon such compromise.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act — s. 308(4), 351(2)
- B.N.S.S. Act — s. 528
Subjects
- compromise
- criminal procedure
- non‑compoundable offence
- quash of proceedings
- Section 528
- verification of compromise
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51553 of 2025
Dinesh Kumar Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Virendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Agrawal, G.A.
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Suraj Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Singh,
learned counsel for the applicants, and the learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State as well as perused the entire material available on
record.
2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer
to quash the charge-sheet dated 20th April, 2025, cognizance/summoning
order dated 1st October, 2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 52021 of 2025 (State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Yadav) arising out of Case
Crime No. 34 of 2025, under Sections 308 (4) and 351 (2) B.N.S. Police
Station-Chowk, District-Varanasi, pending in the Court of Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, on the basis of compromised so arrived at
between the parties.
3. While entertaining the present criminal application, a Coordinate Bench of
this Court passed the order dated 13th August, 2026 directing the applicants
to file the compromise so entered into between the parties before the trial
court for its verification and the trial court was inturn directed to verify the
same.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the trial court vide order dated 11th
September, 2026 has verified the compromise so arrived at between the
parties, a copy of which has been brought on record along with the
supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today which is taken on record.
NA528 No. 51553 of 2025
2
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromised so
arrived at between the parties and the same has also been verified by the
court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be may be
quashed by this Court.
6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection, if the proceedings in the
aforesaid case are quashed.
7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC
675,
(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC
677,
(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
(vi).Dimpey Gujral W/o Vivek Gujral & Others Vs. Union Territory Thru.
Administrator Chandigarh & Others; (2013) 11 SCC 497,
(vii). H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 38 ,
and
(viii). Naushey Ali & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another; (2025) 4
SCC 78.
8. In the aforesaid judgments, the 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. &
Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court
in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein
above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the
NA528 No. 51553 of 2025
3
court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by
prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the
parties have already settled their dispute.
10. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 52021 of 2025
(State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2025,
under Sections 308 (4) and 351 (2) B.N.S. Police Station-Chowk, District-
Varanasi, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi
are hereby quashed.
11. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
September 23, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…