Allahabad High Court

PANKAJ KUMAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

Holding

The High Court held that, on account of a genuine settlement between the parties, the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed under its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The dispute arose from matrimonial discord and the parties had reached a full settlement, which was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The court examined the settled nature of the dispute and relied on Supreme Court precedents that recognise the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, even for non‑compoundable offences, when a genuine compromise exists. Applying these principles, the court held that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would cause injustice to the accused. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

What is the scope of the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the parties have reached a genuine settlement?
Can non‑compoundable offences such as those under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act be quashed on the ground of compromise between the victim and the accused?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320, 482
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 313, 323, 377, 498A

Subjects

quash
settlement
matrimonial dispute
non‑compoundable offence
Section 482 CrPC
Dowry Prohibition Act
inherent jurisdiction
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1687 of 2019

Pankaj Kumar And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Deepak
Sharma, Ruhi Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pankaj Kumar Govil, Rajnish
Kumar Pandey, Santosh Kumar Pandey

Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Rajnish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred to
allow the present application and quash the charge sheet dated 12.07.2018 in
Criminal Case No. 1347 of 2018 (State Vs. Laxmi Devi and others) under
Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act arising
out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 313, 377, 307
IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana,
District-Aligarh pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-8th, Aligarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have settled
their dispute through compromise which has been duly verified by the Court
of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Aligarh vide
order dated 05.03.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises
out of matrimonial discord between the applicants and the opposite party No.
2. It is also argued that the parties have willingly entered into a settlement
and not under duress or threat or coercion and are not interested in pursuing
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
A482 No. 1687 of 2019
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.

7. In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and
Others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, it has been
held that "High Courts have the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash First Information Reports (FIRs) and criminal
proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes where a genuine settlement has
been reached between the parties. The Court clarified that Section 320 Cr.P.C., which
lists compoundable offences, does not restrict this power, and exercising it is crucial
for promoting amicable settlements and serving the ends of justice, even if the offences
are otherwise non-compoundable."

8. 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."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat 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 the
non 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."

10. The parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending amongst
them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the law as 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.

11. The dispute appears to be purely of a matrimonial in nature that has been
mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no
A482 No. 1687 of 2019
3

useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any
longer.

12. The present application for quashing filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
comes within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019 dated
02.09.2025.

13. In view of above, the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1347 of
2018 (State Vs. Laxmi Devi and others) under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of
2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 313, 377, 307 IPC and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Aligarh , are
hereby quashed.

14. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is, accordingly,
allowed.

May 7, 2026
Shivani Sri.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…