Allahabad High Court
ANUJ @ SANTOSH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- PRASHANT MISHRA I
Holding
The court held that where a matrimonial dispute has been settled by a verified compromise, even proceedings for cognizable non‑compoundable offences such as 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act may be quashed.
Summary
The applicant, Anuj Singh, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash Criminal Complaint No. 1185 of 2020, which alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties had entered into a compromise on 6 November 2025, which was verified by the trial court in open court. Both counsel and the Additional Government Advocate submitted that the dispute was matrimonial and settled, rendering further prosecution unnecessary. Citing Supreme Court decisions that permit compromise even for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences, the High Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the court quashed the entire criminal complaint and allowed the application, while noting that any breach of the compromise could be brought before the court again.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act be quashed on the basis of a verified compromise in a matrimonial dispute?
- Are such cognizable, non‑compoundable offences amenable to compromise under Section 528 of the BNSS?
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504
Subjects
- compromise
- matrimonial dispute
- quash
- cognizable offence
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 528 BNSS
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27111 of 2026
Anuj @ Santosh Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailendra Nath Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Adarsh Mishra, G.A.
Court No. - 84
HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the
applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Adarsh Mishra,
learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.
2. Prayer of the applicant in the instant application is quoted herein
below:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very
graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint
No. 1185 of 2020 (Prachi Singh Vs. Anuj Singh and Others), under Sections
498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Paikoliya,
District-Basti on the basis of compromise application dated 06.11.2025 made
between the parties.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the entire
proceeding of Criminal. Complaint No. 1185 of 2020 (Prachi Singh Vs. Anuj
Singh and Others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 4 of D.P.
Act, Police Station-Paikoliya, District-Basti on the basis of compromise
application dated 06.11.2025 made between the parties on the basis of mutual
consent, during pendency of the present application, otherwise the applicant
shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
And/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
NA528 No. 27111 of 2026
2
3. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite
party No. 2 jointly apprised this Court that vide order dated
14.08.2026 passed by this Court, the learned trial court was directed
to verify the parties as well as the compromise so entered into
between them.
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, learned trial
court has sent its verification report dated 01.09.2026 according to
which the compromise was verified in the open court in presence of
the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for
opposite party No. 2 jointly submitted that since it is a matrimonial
dispute and the parties concerned have compromised the matter and
the said compromise has been verified by the learned trial court,
therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is
allowed to go on.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is
of the considered opinion that, since it is a matrimonial dispute and
the parties have compromised the matter, therefore, no useful
purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above
NA528 No. 27111 of 2026
3
mentioned case.
9. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.
1185 of 2020 (Prachi Singh Vs. Anuj Singh and Others), under
Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 4 of D.P. Act, Police
Station-Paikoliya, District-Basti, is hereby quashed.
10. The instant application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is
accordingly allowed.
11. In case the terms and conditions of the compromise are violated
by any of the parties, the aggrieved party may approach this Court.
(Prashant Mishra-I,J.)
September 21, 2026
Kashifa
Digitally signed by :-
KASHIFA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…