Allahabad High Court

SHOBHIT NIGAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 13 September 2026
Bench: DEEPAK VERMA

Holding

The High Court held that, given the complete settlement between the parties and the lack of any useful purpose in continuing the prosecution, the trial summons under Sections 323, 498‑A and 504 IPC must be quashed.

Summary

The applicant filed a Section 528 CrPC application seeking to quash a trial summons dated 15.03.2024 for offences under Sections 323, 498‑A and 504 IPC. The applicant and the opposite party (his wife) had settled their matrimonial dispute, withdrawn all pending criminal cases, and the wife confirmed no desire to pursue the proceedings. The State’s A.G. also agreed that the dispute was settled. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even for certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the order summoning the applicant to trial was quashed and the Section 528 application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal prosecution for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
Whether the provisions of Section 528 CrPC permit the High Court to set aside a trial summons when the parties have withdrawn the complaints.
Whether the settlement under the Hindu Marriage Act affects the pendency of the criminal cases.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Hindu Marriage Act — s. 13-B
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 498-A, 504

Subjects

compromise
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528 CrPC
quash order
matrimonial dispute
IPC 323
IPC 498-A
IPC 504
Hindu Marriage Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28866 of 2025

Shobhit Nigam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rizvi Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sharad Kumar Srivastava, G.A.

Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed to
quash the order dated 15.03.2024 summoning the applicants for trial
under Sections 323, 498-A and 504 IPC passed by the learned Court of
Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2023
and further to quash the impugned Case No. 22 of 2023 pending before
the learned Court of Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, filed for the offence
under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner and his mother and to direct
the initiation of appropriate action against respondent no. 3 for harassing a
senior citizen and presenting a manipulated report before the Trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant no. 1 is the
husband of opposite party no.2 and on account of matrimonial dispute,
opposite party no. 2 initiated various criminal proceedings against the
applicant and in all the matters opposite party no. 2 and applicant have
amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. The proceeding u/s 13-B
of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the opposite party no. 2 was allowed by
judgment and order dated 13.07.2026. He next submits that parties are
living separately in para 7 of the supplementary affidavit which is filed
today it has been stated which is quoted below:-

"That parties have settled all their claims, counterclaims etc. and
deponent wife of applicant has received her Stridhan permanent alimony,
NA528 No. 28866 of 2025
2

maintenance amount. The amount described in plaint as Demand Draft
No. 952208 (State Bank of India) dated 20.11.2025 of Rs. 20,00,000/-
(Twenty Lakhs) received and amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs)
has been paid as a Fixed deposited in AXIS Bank as Account No.
926040089384579 in favour of her daughter namely Vidushi Nigam @
Meeshu a period of 120 Month(s). For kind consideration of this Hon'ble
Court a copy of the bank receipt demand draft no. 952208 (State Bank of
India) dated 20.11.2025 of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) and Fixed
deposit of R. 20,00,000/-(Twenty Lakhs) in AXIS Bank as Account No.
926040089384579 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No.
5 to this affidavit."

4. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have
settled their dispute with the conditions that has been fulfilled. The
applicant and opposite party no. 2 has withdrawn all the criminal
proceedings pending between the parties and today, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2 by supplementary affidavit has stated in para 10
that the parties are not interest to pursue any criminal proceeding pending
against the applicant and no dispute appears to be pending between the
parties and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be
served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

5. 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.

6. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute
out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

7. 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
NA528 No. 28866 of 2025
3

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, 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.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 summoning the
applicants for trial under Sections 323, 498-A and 504 IPC passed by
learned Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 22
of 2023, is hereby quashed.

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

(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 14, 2026
Nisha

Digitally signed by :-
nisha kumari
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…