Shainky Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 48645 of 2025

Shainky

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Navin Kumar Srivastava, Vipin Kumar : G.A., Ram Dulare Chauhan

¶5

Court No. - 79

¶6

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Dulare Chauhan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 511 of 2021 (State Vs. Sainky and another), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 155 of 2020, pending in the court of 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, on the basis of compromise dated 21.08.2025.

¶10

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 05.01.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 27.01.2026 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 their dispute through

¶11

NA528 No. 48645 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

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

¶14

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Accordingly, entire proceedings of Case No. 511 of 2021 (State Vs. Sainky and another), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 155 of 2020, pending in the court of learned 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed in terms of compromise dated 21.08.2025.

¶18

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

¶19

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶20

April 27, 2026 v.k. updh.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shainky v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shainky 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

Ankit Dwivedi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulam Rasool and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajaruddin @ Salman Audi vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Singh @ Mallu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Patel and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shabab and 4 Others Vs State of Up through Its Principal Secretary (Home) at Luckno