Allowed¶21

Jaypal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026NA528/48437/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge sheet and cognizance/summoning order under Section 528 BNSS on basis of compromise between parties; Case Crime No.717 of 2024, Sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 109, 118(1) BNS, P.S. Fareedupur, District Bareilly; compromise verified by trial court on 07.03.2026; precedents relied on: Narindra Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, Shaifullah 2013 (83) ACC 278; Allahabad High Court, Chawan Prakash J.; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed; charge sheet dated 20.12.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2024, and proceedings of Case No.1477/2024 (S.T. No.64/2025) arising out of Case Crime No.717 of 2024, quashed. ¶21

Jaypal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 20.12.2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2024, and the proceedings arising therefrom in Case Crime No.717 of 2024, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the applicant and opposite party no.2.

¶9

Court's answer

In view of the amicable settlement and compromise between the applicant and opposite party no.2 (verified by the trial court), no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings of the charge sheet dated 20.12.2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Faridpur, District Bareilly in Case No.1477/2024 (S.T. No.64/2025), arising out of Case Crime No.717 of 2024, pending before the Additional District Judge/F.T.C., District Bareilly, are quashed.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Chawan Prakash, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the charge sheet dated 20.12.2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Faridpur, District Bareilly in Case No.1477/2024 (S.T. No.64/2025) (State Vs. Jaypal), arising out of Case Crime No.717 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 109, 118(1) B.N.S., Police Station Fareedupur, District Bareilly, pending before the Additional District Judge/F.T.C., District Bareilly. The applicant and opposite party no.2 had amicably settled their dispute out of court; pursuant to this Court's order dated 8.1.2026, the trial court verified the parties and the compromise application by order dated 07.03.2026, and opposite party no.2 did not wish to press the prosecution. Relying on 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, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, and the Allahabad High Court decision in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings and quashed the charge sheet and summoning order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 48437 of 2025

¶3

Jaypal

¶4

		.....	Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Mohammad Was	eem
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	Zulekha Begum,	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 79

¶6

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Zulekha Begum, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 20.12.2024 as well as cognizance//summoning order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Faridpur, District Bareilly in Case No.1477/2024 (S.T. No.64/2025) (State Vs. Jaypal) arising out of Case Crime No.717 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 109, 118(1) B.N.S., Police Station Fareedupur, District Bareilly, pending before Additional District Judge/F.T.C., District Bareilly.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant approached this Hon'ble 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 8.1.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 07.03.2026 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He further submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicant. He further submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise

¶11

NA528 No. 48437 of 2025

¶12

¶13

their dispute 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 applicant and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Accordingly, the proceedings of mpugned charge sheet dated 20.12.2024 as well as cognizance//summoning order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Faridpur, District Bareilly in Case No.1477/2024 (S.T. No.64/2025) (State Vs. Jaypal) arising out of Case Crime No.717 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 109, 118(1) B.N.S., Police Station Fareedupur, District Bareilly, pending before Additional District Judge/F.T.C., District Bareilly is hereby quashed.

¶19

NA528 No. 48437 of 2025

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶23

April 23, 2026 Md Faisal

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jaypal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaypal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Rihan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohanlal Lodhi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonia Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonia vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Tasleem and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others