HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD - Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 19828 of 2026 - Quash Criminal Proceedings

Oct 22, 2026

Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 19828 of 2026 is filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2843 of 2005 arising from Case Crime No. 117A of 1988. The parties submit that a compromise was verified by the concerned court, the dispute is personal and fully settled, and there is no need to continue prosecution. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on quashing on settlement, the Court quashes the proceedings and allows the application.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages3

Reading Time8 min

AccessFree to download

Application Under Section 528 BNSS

Parties and Application Background

Compromise Verification and Submissions

Supreme Court Principles on Quashing

Court Findings and Final Order

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. -19828 of 2026 Mangla Prasad Versus .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) | Counsel for Applicant(s) : Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : | Ashutosh Kumar Shankar Pandey G.A. | Tripathi, | Prem | | --- | --- | --- | --- | Court No. -80 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Prem Shankar Pandey learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to allow the application and quash the entire proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 2843 of 2005 (State v. Harihar Prasad and others) under Sections 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. Police Station Handia, District Allahabad arising out of Case Crime No. 117A of 1988, pertaining to the impugned Charge Sheet, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Allahabad. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the parties appeared before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise. The said compromise has been duly verified and report was forwarded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Prayagraj, on 20.06.2026 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present dispute arises out of personal discord between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2. It is also argued that the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the Court concerned and, therefore, the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. 5. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions NA528 No. 19828 of 2026 2 made by the learned counsel for both the parties. 6. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench Judgment in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012)10 SCC 303, has held that "But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. " 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujara and another,(2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that "even in thenon compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases. " 9. Both the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending amongst them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the lawas cited above, the present case is a good case for exercise of power by the Court to quash summoning order as well as entire proceedings. 10. The dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature that has been mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any

FAQs

What is the purpose of the application under Section 528 BNSS?

The applicants seek permission to allow the application and to quash the entire proceedings of the criminal case on the basis of settlement/compromise between the parties.

How was the compromise treated in the proceedings?

The parties appeared before the court concerned for verification of the compromise, and the compromise was duly verified with a report forwarded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

What was the High Court’s final decision?

The High Court quashed the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2843 of 2005 and allowed the application, finding that the dispute was purely personal and mutually settled.

Oct 22, 2026

Uploaded by 8796093062539