Allahabad High Court
RAHUL ALIAS PAPPU AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The Court held that, given the parties’ compromise and the absence of any useful purpose in continuing the prosecution, the criminal proceedings were quashed.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered an application under Section 528 of the BNSS filed by Rahul alias Pappu and five others seeking to quash the charge sheet, summons and non‑bailable warrant in a case involving offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 354, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants asserted that they had reached an amicable compromise with the second opposite party, who was prepared to withdraw the prosecution. The State did not dispute the existence of the compromise. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the Court quashed all proceedings and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise between parties lead to the quash of criminal proceedings in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act?
- Whether Section 528 of the BNSS can be invoked to terminate such proceedings upon settlement?
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354, 498-A, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 BNSS
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- IPC
- settlement
- criminal law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32836 of 2026
Rahul Alias Pappu And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Martand Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Martand Kumar, learned counsel for applicants 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 dated 10.11.2021,
cognizance/summoning order dated 25.01.2022 and non bailable warrant
dated 27.05.2026 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast
Track Court, Baghpat as well as entire proceeding of Case No.195 of
2022 (State Vs. Rahul alias Pappu & others) arising out of Case Crime
No.0175 of 2021, Under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 506 I.P.C., Section
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District
Baghpat.
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 11.8.2026 directed the parties to
appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 17.8.2026 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
NA528 No. 32836 of 2026
2
submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through
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 AGA 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. 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.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, the proceedings of Charge Sheet dated 10.11.2021,
cognizance/summoning order dated 25.01.2022 and non bailable warrant
dated 27.05.2026 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast
Track Court, Baghpat as well as entire proceeding of Case No.195 of
2022 (State Vs. Rahul alias Pappu & others) arising out of Case Crime
No.0175 of 2021, Under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 506 I.P.C., Section
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District
Baghpat are hereby quashed.
NA528 No. 32836 of 2026
3
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 8, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…