Allahabad High Court
ANIL KUMAR YADAV @ SUGANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The Court held that where the parties have settled their grievances, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order and summoning order in a criminal case arising from offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. The High Court noted that a compromise deed had been filed and verified as directed by a coordinate bench. The State had no objection to the settlement. Relying on a line of Supreme Court decisions that allow criminal proceedings to be dismissed where the parties have settled their disputes, the Court exercised its power to quash the entire proceeding. The application was allowed and the charge sheet, cognizance and summoning orders were set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order and summoning order after a compromise deed is verified.
Legislation cited
- BNSS Act — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 452, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- settlement
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 BNSS
- compromise deed
- charge sheet
- cognizance order
- Supreme Court precedent
- IPC
- S.C./S.T. Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8134 of 2026
Anil Kumar Yadav @ Sugan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devashish Tripathi, Pushpa Raj
Pandey, Rajiv Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sharada Yadav, G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Devashish Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Sharada Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri
Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the
records.
3. The present application under Sections 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicant Anil Kumar Yadav @ Sugan, with the prayer to allow the
present application and quash the impugned charge sheet No. 139/2020
dated 12.04.2020 along with cognizance order as well as
summoning/NBW order dated 31.03.2021 passed by Special Judge
S.C./S.T. Act, Allahabad as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No. 244 of
2021, arising out of case crime No. 083 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504,
506, 452 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.- Sarai Inayat,
District Prayagraj and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings
of the said case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants states that an order was passed by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 directing the
applicants to file the said compromise deed before the court concerned
which was to be verified by the court concerned. In pursuance of the said
order, the court concerned vide order dated 07.04.2026 verified the said
compromise, copy of the same is on record. The same is not disputed by
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
5. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the said proposition.
6. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of
(1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4
NA528 No. 8134 of 2026
2
SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation :
(2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16
SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5)
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC
278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur
and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has
held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can
be quashed.
7. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court
on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising
powers by this Court to quash the proceedings, charge sheet as well as
cognizance/summoning order as prayed for by the applicant(s).
8. The present application is allowed.
9. The entire proceeding, charge sheet No. 139/2020 dated 12.04.2020
along with cognizance order as well as summoning/NBW order dated
31.03.2021 of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
May 6, 2026
M. ARIF
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…