Allahabad High Court

AMAN AND OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court held that, given the mutual compromise and lack of public interest, the proceedings could be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in a case involving offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 506, 354, 354‑B of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the applicants and the second opposite party had amicably settled the dispute outside court and the second opposite party expressed no desire to continue the prosecution. The High Court verified the compromise and, relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire proceeding were quashed. The application under Section 482 was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354, 354-B, 498-A, 506

Subjects

compromise
Section 482
quash of criminal proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
criminal procedure
charge sheet
Dowry Prohibition Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2369 of 2024

Aman And Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Juned Alam, Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh, G.A., Kirti Singh

Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for applicants, Ms. Kirti
Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the
State.

2. The present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No.135/23 dated
8.6.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 15.9.2023 and entire
proceeding of Case No.31109 of 2023 (State Vs. Aman and others)
arising out of Case Crime No.10 of 2023, under sections 498-A, 323, 506,
354, 354-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Binawar, District
Badaun.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and
opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court.
Applicants approached this Court by filing this application with prayer to
quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the
parties, this Court vide order dated 16.3.2026 directed the parties to
appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 3.4.2026 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
A482 No. 2369 of 2024
2

submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through
compromise their 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 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 harge sheet No.135/23 dated 8.6.2023 and
cognizance/summoning order dated 15.9.2023 and entire proceeding of
Case No.31109 of 2023 (State Vs. Aman and others) arising out of Case
Crime No.10 of 2023, under sections 498-A, 323, 506, 354, 354-B I.P.C.
and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Binawar, District Badaun are hereby
A482 No. 2369 of 2024
3

quashed.

9. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 18, 2026
Md Faisal

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…