Allahabad High Court
MONU AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that, given the parties’ genuine compromise and the Supreme Court’s authority allowing compromise even in certain non‑compoundable offences, the criminal proceedings were of no useful purpose and were quashed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 17997 of 2024, which involved offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants claimed that they had reached an amicable settlement with the second opposite party, who was willing to withdraw the prosecution. The State’s counsel raised no objection to the compromise. Relying on Supreme Court decisions that permit compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, the High Court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants and allowed the Section 528 application. The order was pronounced on 1 October 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for offences including IPC 498A, 323, 504, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act 3/4 can be quashed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. on the ground of a compromise between the parties
- Whether a compromise is permissible in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences as per Supreme Court jurisprudence
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- IPC 498A
- Supreme Court precedent
- settlement
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10900 of 2026
Monu And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Tewari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for applicants and
learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been
filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 17997 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 169 of
2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad,
pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 1. Moradabad.
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 26.3.2026, directed the parties to
appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 10.4.2026 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
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
NA528 No. 10900 of 2026
2
compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is
allowed to go on.
4. Learned AGA 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 he has no objection, if the
proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, the proceedings of aforesaid case are hereby quashed in
respect of present applicants.
8. This application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is accordingly
allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
October 1, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…