Allahabad High Court
SHABAB AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) AT LUCKNO
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court held that the proceedings could be quashed as the parties had amicably settled the dispute, and continuation would serve no useful purpose.
Summary
The applicants, including Shabab, were charged in a criminal case under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 313 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arising from a complaint by the wife of Shabab. After investigation and framing of charges, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement on 1 August 2025, and the complainant expressed a desire to withdraw the prosecution. The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quash of the pending trial proceedings on the basis of the compromise. The State opposed, but both parties agreed that the dispute was settled. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose and quashed the entire proceedings. The application under Section 482 was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 323, 498A, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- Section 482 CrPC
- non‑compoundable offence
- quash of criminal proceedings
- dowry harassment
- criminal trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23042 of 2021
Shabab And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of Up Through Its Principal Secretary (Home)
At Luckno .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir, Satyendra
Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Jamaluddin, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the marriage of applicant
no. 1 was solemnized with Smt. Sadma, opposite party no. 2. He has next
submitted that opposite party no. 2 has lodged a case at P.S. Mahila Thana,
District Meerut, which was registered as Case Crime No. 31 of 2000, under
Sections 498A, 323, 506, 313 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant nos. 1
to 5. After completing investigation, the investigating officer has submitted
charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 313 IPC
and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and charges have been framed against applicants.
During trial statements of P.W.1 Smt. Sadma and P.W. 2 Abdul Jabbar, Smt.
Praveen and constable Rameshwar have been recorded. He has further
submitted that during trial opposite party no. 2 Smt. Sadma, wife of Shahab
had died on 04.05.2018.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 1101 of 2002 (State Vs. Shabab
and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 313 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act,
Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, arising out of Case Crime No.
31 of 2000, pending in the court of learned IV Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Meerut, on the basis of compromise dated 01.08.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants 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,
A482 No. 23042 of 2021
2
this Court vide order dated 20.03.2026 directed the parties to appear before
the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application.
Trial court vide order dated 08.04.2026 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. He further submitted that
applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute through
compromise 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
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 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, entire proceedings of aforesaid case, are hereby quashed in
terms of compromise dated 01.08.2025.
9. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed.
April 27, 2026
v.k. updh.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…