HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10264 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; Sri Haider Ali, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.277 of 2023, (State versus Ajay Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.58 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 427, 325 IPC, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge 1st Jaunpur in pursuant to compromise dated 06.01.2025 (annexure no.1) to this affidavit. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that both the parties have lodged FIR against each other and received injuries. Both the parties are family members. Applicant lodged FIR against opposite party no.2 as Case Crime No.926 of 2017, under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 IPC, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur in which both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into compromised thereafter filed 528 BNSS Application No.8457 of 2025 for quashing the entire proceeding against the opposite party no.2 and the same has been quashed and the said application was allowed vide order dated 14.07.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the present FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicants in which both the parties settled their dispute out side the court and compromised the matter and file the present 528 BNSS application for quashing the entire Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Yadav, Kailash Nath, Manoj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajay Mishra And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) proceedings pending against the applicants on account of compromise between the parties. This Court vide order dated 28.03.2025, directed both the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of compromise. The order dated 28.03.2025 is quoted below:- "On perusal of compromise dated 6.1.2025 it appears that parties settled their dispute with regard to offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 427, 325 of I.P.C. Certified copy of the compromise is on record as Annexure-11 to the affidavit. Both the parties are directed to appear before the court concerned within six weeks from today for verification. Court concerned is directed to verify the same. Applicants are directed to file supplementary affidavit annexing certified copy of the verified compromise as well as verification proceedings. Put up this case as fresh on 15.7.2025. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Session Trial No. 277 of 2023 (State Vs. Ajay Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 427, 325 of I.P.C., Police Station- Sikrara, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Jaunpur shall remain stayed against the applicants." 5. In pursuance of order dated 28.03.2025, both the parties have appeared before the trial court. Trial court vide order dated 02.05.2025 identified the parties and verified the compromise deed. The same has been filed through supplementary which is taken on record. 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 private and civil 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. NA528 No. 10264 of 2025 2 6. 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. 7. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.277 of 2023, (State versus Ajay Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.58 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 427, 325 IPC, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur, is hereby quashed. 11. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed. September 17, 2025 I.A.Siddiqui NA528 No. 10264 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad