HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13516 of 2026 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Sri N.K. Singh, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, is taken on record. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Balram Singh, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Balram Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State. 4. The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 29.08.2024, summoning/cognizance order dated 19.02.2025 and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2534 of 2025 (State vs. Mukul Tyagi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sambhal, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi. 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 this application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, this Court vide order dated 3.4.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 21.5.2026 verified the parties as Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Balram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mukul Tyagi And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 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 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 proceedings of aforesaid case are hereby quashed in respect of present applicants. NA528 No. 13516 of 2026 2 11. This application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed. October 1, 2026 Md Faisal NA528 No. 13516 of 2026 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad