Shanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41323 of 2025

Shanti Devi And Another

	Versus	....	.Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Dan Bahadur Yadav, : G.A., Pawan Kumar Yadav	Parmes Yadav,	hwar Yadav Ravi Kumar

¶4

Court No. - 79

¶5

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sakil Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ravi Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case Nos. 2552 of 2013 and 1817 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2013, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Musajhag, District Budaun, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Budaun in pursuance of compromise dated 19.09.2025 entered into between the parties.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant approached this Court by filing this 528 BNSS application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 01.01.2026 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 their dispute through compromise and, as such, opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. 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.

¶9

NA528 No. 41323 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

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.

¶12

Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

¶13

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 noncompoundable 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Accordingly, entire proceeding of Case Nos. 2552 of 2013 and 1817 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2013, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Musajhag, District Budaun, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Budaun in pursuance of compromise dated 19.09.2025, are hereby quashed.

¶16

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

¶17

April 16, 2026 Rmk.

¶18

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shanti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramkunwar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Danish vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulab Chandra Alias Pintoo and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Janam Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Tushar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another