Allahabad High Court
ANUBHAV MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The Court held that, on account of a verified compromise between the parties, the cognizance order, charge‑sheet and the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Summary
The applicant, Anubhav Mishra, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 19‑07‑2024 and the charge‑sheet No. 254/2023 in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The High Court had earlier directed the parties to file a compromise deed, which was verified by the trial court on 21‑04‑2026. The State had no objection to the compromise. Relying on a line of Supreme Court decisions that allow quashing of criminal proceedings where the parties have settled their disputes, the Court held that the present case warranted the exercise of its power to quash. Consequently, the application was allowed and the entire proceeding, including the cognizance order and charge‑sheet, was set aside.
Issues considered
- What is the scope of Section 528 CrPC in permitting the quashment of criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Whether the cognizance/summoning order and charge‑sheet can be set aside when a valid compromise deed has been verified by the trial court?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(da), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- quashment
- compromise
- Section 528 CrPC
- cognizance order
- charge sheet
- settlement of criminal dispute
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8591 of 2026
Anubhav Mishra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brij Bhushan Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Malviya, G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Brij Bhushan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Amit Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri
V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
3. The present application under Sections 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicant Anubhav Mishra with the prayer to allow the present
application and set aside the cognizance/summoning order dated
19.07.2024 as well as the charge sheet No. 254/2023 dated 19.08.2023
along with entire proceedings in Case Crime No. 214 of 2023, under
Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(da) (dha) and 3(2)(va)
S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.- Malpura, District Agra on the basis of compromise
done between the parties and with a further prayer to stay the further
proceedings of the said case.
4. Perused the order dated 22.04.2026 by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants states that an order was passed by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.02.2026 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 21.04.2026 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.
6. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the said proposition.
7. 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
SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation :
NA528 No. 8591 of 2026
2
(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.
8. 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).
9. The present application is allowed.
10. The entire proceeding, cognizance/summoning order dated
19.07.2024 as well as the charge sheet No. 254/2023 dated 19.08.2023 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…