Allahabad High Court

NA528/1160/2026 of SATISH SHARMA AND 2 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 8 October 2026

Cites 7, Cited by 0

JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1160 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard 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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1160 of 2026

Court No. - 79

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

7

Decisions referred to

In this index

5

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. Heard 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 charge-sheet dated 12th June, 2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 14th July, 2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6219 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Satish Sharma & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 and 120- B I.P.C., Police Station-Chikana, District-Saharanpur, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Saharanpur, 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 20th April, 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 i.e. Judicial Magistrate-II, Saharanpur vide covering letter dated 20th May, 2026 has informed that vide order dated 1st May, 2026, he has verified the compromise so arrived at between the parties, a copy of which has been brought on record along with the order-sheet of the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromised so Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vikas Chauhan Satish Sharma And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

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 and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have 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 court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by NA528 No. 1160 of 2026

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. 6219 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Satish Sharma & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Chikana, District-Saharanpur, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Saharanpur are hereby quashed.

11. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. October 9, 2026 Sushil/- NA528 No. 1160 of 2026

(Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead