Allahabad High Court
JAY PRAKASH SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DEEPAK VERMA
Holding
The Court held that, given the verified compromise and lack of any useful purpose in continuation, the criminal proceedings were quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Summary
The applicants filed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash a criminal complaint (Case No.20290 of 2021) involving offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant, who is the husband’s wife, had settled the dispute amicably and the trial court verified the compromise. Both parties, including the complainant, consented to withdraw the prosecution. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and the Section 482 application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a court‑verified compromise between the parties.
- Whether the consent of the complainant suffices to withdraw prosecution in offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498-A, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- Section 482
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- court‑verified settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21702 of 2024
Jay Prakash Singh And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Chaubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Brijendra Kumar Pandey, G.A.
Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing of summoning order dated 21.07.2022 as well as entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No.20290 of 2021 (Smt. Renu Verma Vs.
Jay Prakash Singh & Others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana Nawabad, District-Jhansi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no. 1 and
opposite party no. 2 are husband and wife and they have amicably settled
their dispute out of the Court. Applicant approached this Hon'ble Court by
filing this 482 application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of
compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated
27.09.2024 sent the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and
compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 09.10.2024 verified the
parties as 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 and are
living together. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2
have settled through compromise their private and civil 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
A482 No. 21702 of 2024
2
served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
4. 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.
5. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out
of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.20290 of 2021
(Smt. Renu Verma Vs. Jay Prakash Singh & Others) under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana
Nawabad, District-Jhansi, is hereby quashed.
9. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
May 18, 2026
Meenu Singh
Digitally signed by :-
MEENU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…