Allahabad High Court
NA528/52433/2025 of SURESH AND 3 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 13 May 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 52433 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri M.K. Dhuriya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party No.2,
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 52433 of 2025
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri M.K. Dhuriya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash the charge sheet dated 05.06.2025 along with cognizance order dated 09.07.2025 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Crl. Case No.42076 of 2025 (State Vs. Suresh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.198 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 131, 351(2), 117(2), 110 B.N.S., P.S. Munda Pandey, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge(J.D.), Court No. 6, Moradabad on the basis of compromise.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and opposite party no. 2 have entered into a compromise and they have amicably settled their dispute outside the court and no dispute is pending between them, therefore, do not want to get adjudication of alleged criminal act and prayed that the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed. He further submits that the applicants shall file compromise deed before the learned trial court for verification.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 do not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Shiromani Yadav
Suresh And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
relied upon by him. They submit that opposite party no. 2 have no objection, if the parties approach trial court to file compromise deed in the given circumstances.
5. Whether the parties have entered into compromise, can best be adjudicated by the trial court. As such, the parties may appear before the trial court and file the compromise deed entered into between the parties within 30 days, which shall be verified by the trial court. The trial court shall place the original compromise deed in its record.
6. No compromise shall be entertained by the trial court if the informant/victim and accused are not signatories and appear before the court of its verification. In case of exigency, the trial court shall apply its mind and pass appropriate order.
7. For a period of two months, the proceedings of the trial court shall be kept in abeyance, if the compromise is filed and verified within stipulated period, otherwise, the trial court shall continue with the trial in accordance with law.
8. All the parties, who files compromise deed and get it verified shall then file a joint application invoking inherent power of this Court to quash the criminal proceeding.
9. In view of above, the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly disposed of. May 14, 2026 Md Faisal NA528 No. 52433 of 2025 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad