Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD NAZISH AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- NAND PRABHA SHUKLA
Holding
The High Court quashed all criminal proceedings pending against the applicants on account of a genuine settlement between the parties.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute, which included charges under IPC sections 498A, 323, 506, 377, 313, 354, the Dowry Prohibition Act (sections 3 and 4) and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act (sections 3, 4, 8). Both parties appeared before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, verified a compromise and agreed to withdraw the case. The opposite party and the Attorney General’s Assistant also consented to the quashing. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow High Courts to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings where a genuine settlement exists, even for non‑compoundable offences, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution would cause oppression and injustice. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire set of proceedings and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement in a matrimonial dispute involving non‑compoundable offences such as IPC 498A and dowry offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 323, 354, 377, 498A, 506
- Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act — s. 3, 4, 8
Subjects
- settlement
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- matrimonial dispute
- non‑compoundable offences
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
- dowry
- domestic violence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17094 of 2021
Mohammad Nazish And 7 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aniruddha Gupta, Gaurav Tiwari,
Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anjani Kumar, Ashutosh Singh, G.A.,
Lallan Prasad Singh, Manoj Kumar
Mishra, Satyendra Kumar Singh,
Vyomesh Kumar Srivastava
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ajani
Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, 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 quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 10139
of 2021, State v. Mohammad Nazish and Others under Sections 498A, 323,
506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and under
Sections 3, 4, 8 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage)
Act, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi
including the charge-sheet No. A39 of 2021 dated 19.06.2021 filed in Case
Crime No. 0097 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 377, 313, 323, 354, 506 IPC
and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and under Sections 3, 4, 8
of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act.
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 the report was forwarded by the
learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, on 09.09.2026.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises
out of personal discord between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2.
A482 No. 17094 of 2021
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 counsel for the opposite party no. 2 admits the arguments of
learned counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the
impugned proceeding pending against the applicants is quashed.
6. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for both the parties.
7. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled. 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."
A482 No. 17094 of 2021
3
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
useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any
longer.
12. The present application for quashing filed under Section 528 BNSS
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 the above, the entire proceedings of Case No. 10139 of 2021,
State v. Mohammad Nazish and Others under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC
and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and under Sections 3, 4, 8
of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, pending in
the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi including the
charge-sheet No. A39 of 2021 dated 19.06.2021 filed in Case Crime No.
0097 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 377, 313, 323, 354, 506 IPC and under
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and under Sections 3, 4, 8 of the
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, are hereby quashed.
14. The present application is, accordingly, allowed.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
September 23, 2026
Aditya Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…