Allahabad High Court
UMMIDALAM URF BALLE AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that, in view of the verified compromise and Supreme Court authority permitting compromise for certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, the criminal proceedings must be quashed.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash charge sheets and criminal proceedings arising from allegations under Sections 498A, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The dispute had been settled by a compromise deed dated 17‑12‑2024, which was verified by the trial court. Both the applicants and the opposing parties (Nos. 2 and 3) expressed a desire to withdraw the prosecution. The High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Finding no useful purpose in continuing the case, the Court quashed the charge sheets and the pending criminal proceedings. The application under Section 528 was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise deed can be the basis for quashing criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, which are cognizable and non‑compoundable.
- Whether Section 528 of the BNSS permits the court to quash such proceedings on the ground of verified compromise.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. (Section 528) — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 BNSS
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Section 498A IPC
- Section 506 IPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35258 of 2026
Ummidalam Urf Balle And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dwijendra Prasad, G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajendra Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravindra Singh,
learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.
for the State, Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party
nos. 2 and 3 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 No. 170 of 2007 and 170A of 2007
dated 24.11.2007 & 27.11.2007, cognizance order dated 16.02.2008
and entire criminal proceedings of Case Nos.285 of 2008 & 821 of 2012
(State vs. Ummidalam @ Balle and others), arising out of Case Crime No.
353 of 2007, under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act, Police Station Ramgarh, District Firozabad, pending in court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Shikohabad, Firozabad, in pursuance of
compromise deed dated 17.12.2024 .
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite
party nos.2 and 3 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court.
Applicants approached this Court by filing Application under Section 528
BNSS No. 16673 of 2025 with the prayer to quash the proceedings in terms
of compromise entered between the parties and this Court vide order dated
13.05.2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for
verification of the parties and compromise application and the learned trial
court was directed to verify the said compromise deed. Trial court vide order
dated 15.07.2025 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He
further submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 and 3 have settled
their dispute through compromise and, as such, opposite party nos.2 and 3
do not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party
NA528 No. 35258 of 2026
2
nos.2 and 3 are 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 counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and 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 No. 170 of 2007 and 170A of 2007 dated
24.11.2007 & 27.11.2007, cognizance order dated 16.02.2008 and entire
criminal proceedings of Case Nos.285 of 2008 & 821 of 2012 (State vs.
Ummidalam @ Balle and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 353 of
2007, under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Ramgarh, District Firozabad, pending in court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate Shikohabad, Firozabad, are hereby quashed in
terms of compromise.
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
September 11, 2026
Rmk.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…