HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39741 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Case called out in the revised list. None is present on behalf opposite party No.2. However, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 3. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State. 4. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash the charge sheet dated 11.9.2016 along with cognizance order dated 7.10.2016 as well as entire criminal proceeding of S.T. No.320 of 2016 (State Vs. Saddam), arising out of Case Crime No.244 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Dhanaura, District Amroha. 5. 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 Court by filing 528 BNSS application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, this Court vide order dated 9.12.2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 19.1.2026 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Alok Kumar Gupta, Aman Mishra, G.A. Saddam .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) submitted that applicant 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. 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. 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 dated 11.9.2016 along with cognizance order dated 7.10.2016 as well as entire criminal proceeding of S.T. No.320 of 2016 (State Vs. Saddam), arising out of Case Crime No.244 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Dhanaura, District Amroha is hereby quashed. 10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed. May 5, 2026 Md Faisal NA528 No. 39741 of 2025 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad