Allahabad High Court
ABHAY KARTAT SINGH ALIAS ABHAY SHARMA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- NAND PRABHA SHUKLA
Holding
The High Court held that the proceedings must be quashed as the parties have reached a genuine settlement and continuation would cause injustice.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quash of Criminal Case No. 928 of 2022, which involved charges of dowry harassment and assault under IPC 498‑A, 323, 354 and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties had reached a mutual settlement on 25 September 2023, which was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Both the opposite party and the State’s A.G.A. consented to the quashing. The High Court, relying on precedents such as B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, held that where a genuine compromise exists in matrimonial disputes, the court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash even non‑compoundable offences. Consequently, the court ordered the entire proceeding to be quashed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute involving non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the parties
- Whether the application under Section 528 BNSS is maintainable for quashing the proceedings
Legislation cited
- BNSS Act — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354, 498-A
Subjects
- matrimonial dispute
- settlement
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 BNSS
- High Court inherent jurisdiction
- dowry prohibition
- IPC 498-A
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26803 of 2025
Abhay Kartat Singh Alias Abhay Sharma And 3
Others .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to allow
this application and quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 928 of
2022 (State v. Kartar And others) arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2022
under Sections 498-A, 323, 354 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
Gautam Budh Nagar as well as charge sheet dated 05.08.2022 and
cognizance order dated 27.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistate-I, Gautam Buddh Nagar on the basis of compromise.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the parties appeared
before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise dated
25.09.2023, (Annexure No.3). The said compromise has been duly verified
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Gautam Budh
Nagar, vide order dated 10.09.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises
out of matrimonial discord between the applicants and the opposite party
No.2. It is also argued that the parties have willingly entered into a
settlement and not under duress or threat or coercion and are not interested
in pursuing the matter pending in the Court concerned and, therefore, the
impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between
NA528 No. 26803 of 2025
2
the parties and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder
affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 admits the arguments of
learned counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the
impugned proceeding pending against the applicants, is quashed.
6. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for both the parties.
7. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled. In the light of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and
another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, it has been held that "High Courts have the
inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash
First Information Reports (FIRs) and criminal proceedings, particularly in
matrimonial disputes where a genuine settlement has been reached between the
parties. The Court clarified that Section 320 Cr.P.C., which lists compoundable
offences, does not restrict this power, and exercising it is crucial for promoting
amicable settlements and serving the ends of justice, even if the offences are otherwise
non-compoundable."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench Judgment in Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012)10 SCC 303, has held that
"But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another,
NA528 No. 26803 of 2025
3
(2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the criminal
proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that "even in the
non compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be
quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material
cases."
10. The parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending amongst
them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the law as cited
above, the present case is a good case for exercise of power by the Court to
quash summoning order as well as entire proceedings.
11. The dispute appears to be purely of a matrimonial in nature that has been
mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no
useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any
longer.
12. The present application for quashing filed under Section 528 BNSS
comes within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019 dated
02.09.2025.
13. In view of above, the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 928 of
2022 (State v. Kartar And others) arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2022
under Sections 498-A, 323, 354 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
Gautam Budh Nagar, are hereby quashed.
14. The present application under Section 528 BNSS is, accordingly,
allowed.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
May 5, 2026
Aditya Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…