Allahabad High Court
HAJI ABDUL RASHEED ANSARI AND 8 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that, despite the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, a valid compromise can be accepted and the charge sheet and proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge sheet and related proceedings in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 498‑A, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties had reached an out‑of‑court compromise, which was verified by the trial court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even for certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, the High Court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire case were quashed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash proceedings in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the court to set aside a charge sheet and related orders on the basis of such a compromise.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354, 498-A, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 BNSS
- quash of charge sheet
- IPC 498-A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34461 of 2026
Haji Abdul Rasheed Ansari And 8 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandip Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with
the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 26.03.2023,
cognizance/summoning order dated 17.05.2023 and entire proceedings of
Case No. 75458 of 2023 (State Vs. Abdul Rasheed and others), arising
out Case Crime No.44 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 354 IPC
and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhelupur,
District-Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-V, Varanasi, on the basis of compromise dated 23.01.2026.
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 Application under Section 528
BNSS No. 18595 of 2026 with prayer to quash the proceedings in terms
of compromise entered between the parties and this Court vide order
dated 06.05.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for
verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide
order dated 02.07.2026 verified the parties as well as compromise
application. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2
have settled their dispute through compromise 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
NA528 No. 34461 of 2026
2
prosecution is allowed to go on.
4. Learned A.G.A. submitted that both the parties have settled their
dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.
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, charge sheet dated 26.03.2023, cognizance/summoning
order dated 17.05.2023 and entire proceedings of Case No. 75458 of 2023
(State Vs. Abdul Rasheed and others), arising out Case Crime No.44 of
2023, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhelupur, District-Varanasi, pending in
the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Varanasi, are hereby
quashed in terms of compromise.
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 8, 2026
Rmk.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…