Allahabad High Court

HASEEN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The court held that where the parties have amicably settled and there is no useful purpose in continuing prosecution, the charge sheet and the entire proceeding may be quashed under Section 528 B.N.S.S. even for cognizable non‑compoundable offences.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants and the second opposite party had reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the second opposite party consented to withdraw the prosecution. Both parties, including the State’s AGA, supported the request to dismiss the case. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even for 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, and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between the parties can justify quashing criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.
Whether the court may entertain an application to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order when the victim consents to withdraw the case.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498-A, 506

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528
non‑compoundable offences
IPC
Dowry Prohibition Act
settlement
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19224 of 2025

Haseen And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Laxmi Kant Bhatt
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Nath Bhatt, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Laxmi Kant Bhatt, learned counsel for applicants, Sri
Mohammad Javed Akhtar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandra Nath
Bhatt, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the
State.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by
the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no.161 of 2024
dated 29.05.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated
04.01.2025 and also quash the entire proceeding of Case No.127 of 2025
(State versus Haseen and others), arising out case crime no.135 of 2023,
under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station-Lohiya Nagar, District-Meerut, pending before the learned
Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

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 25.9.2025 directed the parties to
appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 19.5.2026 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
NA528 No. 19224 of 2025
2

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 charge sheet no.161 of 2024 dated 29.05.2024 as well
as cognizance/summoning order dated 04.01.2025 and also quash the
entire proceeding of Case No.127 of 2025 (State versus Haseen and
others), arising out case crime no.135 of 2023, under sections 498-A, 323,
506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Lohiya Nagar,
District-Meerut are hereby quashed.
NA528 No. 19224 of 2025
3

9. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 17, 2026
Md Faisal

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…