Allahabad High Court

SHAKTI SINGH PATHRAURversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: PRASHANT MISHRA I

Holding

The High Court held that, given the verified compromise, the criminal proceedings should be quashed as no useful purpose would be served by their continuation.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 seeking to quash criminal proceedings in complaint case No. 3185 of 2018, which involved offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court verified that the applicant and the second opposite party had reached a compromise and reported the same to the High Court. Both parties, including the State, agreed that the dispute was settled out of court and that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. The High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Consequently, the Court held that the criminal proceedings should be quashed and allowed the application under Section 528.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between the parties can justify quashing criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
Whether the High Court can dismiss a pending criminal case on the basis of a verified settlement between the accused and the complainant.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 528
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528 B.N.S.S.
non‑compoundable offences
Dowry Prohibition Act
IPC offences
settlement

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21327 of 2026

Shakti Singh Pathraur
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prem Chandra Dwivedi, Vivek Kumar
Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 84
HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.

1. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the
applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
State.

2. The instant application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been
filed with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding on the basis of
compromise between the both parties on 12.08.2025 in complaint case no.
3185 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana Navabad, District-
Jhansi, (Smt. Neelam Versus Shakti Singh Pathraur), pending in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Jhansi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court on the order
passed by this Court on 22.05.2026 by which learned trial court was directed
to verify the status and identities of the parties and compromise so entered
between them and thereafter send its report. In compliance thereof, the
learned trial court has sent its report dated 04.06.2026, according to which,
compromise between the applicant and opposite party no. 2 had been
verified. It has further been contended that applicant and Opposite Party No.
2 have compromised the matter and opposite party No. 2 does not want to
proceed the matter against the applicant. The Opposite Party No. 2 is ready
to withdraw the criminal prosecution of the applicant and in view of the
compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is
allowed to go on.
NA528 No. 21327 of 2026
2

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that both the parties
have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, there is no reason to
proceed further.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Narindra Singh and others Vs.
State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs.
State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi
Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688 had 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 the learned counsels 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 entire criminal proceedings in complaint case no. 3185
of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana Navabad, District-Jhansi,
(Smt. Neelam Versus Shakti Singh Pathraur), pending in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Jhansi, are hereby quashed.

8. This application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is accordingly
allowed.

(Prashant Mishra-I,J.)
September 29, 2026
A. Mandhani

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK MANDHANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…