HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 49645 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sujeet Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 17.7.2000 and cognizance/summoning order dated 3.1.2001 as well as entire proceeding of Crl. Case No.3143 of 2024 (State Vs. Sheetla Prasad Rai) arising out of Case Crime No. 253 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 5504, 326 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Azamgarh. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicants 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 17.02.2026 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 through compromise their dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Upendra Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ravindra Kumar Sheetla Prasad Rai And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 5. 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. 6. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the proceedings of charge-sheet No.106/2019 dated 07.02.2019 as well as Case No.93 of 2019 (State vs. Sameer) arising out of Case Crime No.69 of 2019 under Sections 452, 376, 511, 352, 323 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut are hereby quashed. 10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed. April 23, 2026/Md Faisal NA528 No. 49645 of 2025 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad