HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3512 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kashi Nath Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State. 3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 4.7.2025 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 6.1.2026 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.573 of 2026 (State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 B.N.S., P.S. Sindhaura, District Varanasi. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant 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 5.2.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 10.2.2026 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 through compromise their dispute 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Kashi Nath Singh Yadav, G.A. Deepak Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 dated 4.7.2025 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 6.1.2026 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.573 of 2026 (State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 B.N.S., P.S. Sindhaura, District Varanasi is hereby quashed. 10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed. May 5, 2026 Md Faisal NA528 No. 3512 of 2026 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad