Amir @ Amar And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

2. Heard Sri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Dheeraj Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla, 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 entire proceeding of Case No.1335 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Amir@Amar) arising out of Case Crime No.369 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3), 324(4) B.N.S., Police Station Sahaswan, District Badaun on the basis of compromise dated 12.11.2025.

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 14.1.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 3.2.2026 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 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.1335 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Amir@Amar) arising out of Case Crime No.369 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3), 324(4) B.N.S., Police Station Sahaswan, District Badaun is hereby quashed.

10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

May 7, 2026

Md Faisal