Allahabad High Court
NITIN SHANKHDHAR AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that where the parties have amicably settled a civil‑nature dispute and the victim‑witness refuses to prosecute, the court may, under its inherent jurisdiction, quash the criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashal of criminal proceedings (Case No. 774 of 2019) arising from offences under Sections 377, 376, 504, 323 and 313 IPC. The dispute stemmed from a matrimonial relationship that ended in a mutual divorce and a compromise deed dated 30.01.2023, wherein the applicant agreed to pay permanent alimony and both parties consented to withdraw the case. The State had no objection to the compromise. Relying on a series of Supreme Court precedents, the High Court examined its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (and Section 528 BNSS) to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. It held that the offences were of a private, civil‑nature and, given the settled compromise and the victim‑witness's unwillingness to prosecute, the likelihood of conviction was remote. Consequently, the court quashed the entire criminal proceeding. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding arising from matrimonial and related offences can be quashed on the basis of a mutual compromise between the parties.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (and Section 528 BNSS) to quash non‑heinous offences despite the non‑compoundable nature of some IPC sections.
- Whether the compromise and the victim's unwillingness to prosecute justify dismissal of the case in the interest of justice.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320, 482
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 13B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 141, 143, 147, 149, 313, 323, 324, 376, 377, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- matrimonial dispute
- non‑heinous offence
- abuse of process
- settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35388 of 2025
Nitin Shankhdhar And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Shankar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State-
opposite party no.1.
2. Present application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the
applicants to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 774 of 2019
(State Vs. Nitin Shankhdhar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 364
of 2018, under Sections 377, 376, 504, 323, 313 I.P.C., P.S. Bisauli, District
Budaun, as well as impugned charge sheet dated 20.01.2019 along with
cognizance order dated 03.04.2019, on the basis of compromise dated
30.01.2023.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the
marriage between applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 was
solemnized on 12.12.2015. However, the divorce took place by mutual
consent on 29.04.2024. A copy of the judgment and order dated
29.04.2024 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 74 of 2023 (Smt. Rashi
Sharma Vs. Nitin Shankhdhar) under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage
Act has been appended as Annexure No. 7 to the application. It is further
submitted that both the parties have entered into a compromise, which
was verified by the learned trial court on 24.07.2025. A copy of the
compromise deed has been appended at page nos. 85 to 88, and a copy of
the compromise verification report has been appended along with the
supplementary affidavit dated 14.10.2025.
4. It is further submitted that, as per the compromise, the parties would
NA528 No. 35388 of 2025
2
obtain a divorce, and applicant no. 1 would pay permanent alimony of Rs.
10,00,000/- to opposite party no. 2, and the case would be withdrawn by
the parties. It was also agreed between the parties that the present case
would be withdrawn on the basis of the compromise and that they would
not interfere in each other’s lives. Lastly, it is prayed that, on the basis of
the compromise, the proceedings against the applicants be quashed.
5. It is further contended that in view of the said compromise, the pending
proceedings before the trial court be quashed in the light of the Judgments of
Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4)
SCC 675, and that of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed
reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs.
State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State
of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs.
State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the
applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their differences 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 prosecution is allowed to go on.
7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State have no objection to the
above submissions.
8. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
9. Undoubtedly, the compromise has also taken place between the parties,
which has also been verified by the learned Trial Court vide order dated
24.07.2025.
10. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case
the dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the
parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC
there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of
Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent powers in view of the recorded
settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh
NA528 No. 35388 of 2025
3
(supra) has held in para-61 that;
"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR
or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and
different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of
justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases
power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can
be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court
must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's
family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not
private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot
provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
NA528 No. 35388 of 2025
4
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case
is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
the criminal proceeding."
11. In the judgment of Ram Gopal and Another vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012), decided on 29.9.2021,
reported in (2022) 118 ACC 318, the Supreme Court once again reiterated
that even if the offences are non-compoundable, the High Court can quash
the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC,
having regard to the nature of the offences and the fact that parties have
amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the
nullification of criminal proceeding. While so holding, it has been pointed
out that the High Court can indisputably evaluate the consequential effects
of the offences beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a
pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does
not tinker with or paralyse the very object of the administration of criminal
justice system. In para 14 of the said judgment, the principles have been
summarized as follows: -
"14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve
moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of
the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be
construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have
the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences
through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the
community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous
habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a 'settlement' through
duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well
said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."
12. The Supreme Court in another judgment of Madhukar and Others vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal)
No. 7212 of 2025, alongwith Prabhakar vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of 2025, quashed
NA528 No. 35388 of 2025
5
the proceedings of Case Crime No.302 of 2023, dated 20.11.2023, under
Sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 as well as quashed the proceedings of Case Crime No.304 of
2023, dated 21.11.2023, under Sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509 and 506
IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties. Paragraph nos.6, 7 and
8 of the said judgment are reproduced herein:-
"6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is
undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of
proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between
the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However,
the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of
justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with
reference to the facts of each case.
7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation
where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was
filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side.
This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and
suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More
importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally
expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is
now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the
criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her
stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained,
including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the
prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably
resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these
circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any
meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned,
especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood
of a productive outcome.
8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the
complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that
the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful
NA528 No. 35388 of 2025
6
purpose and would only amount to abuse of process."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment of Kapil Gupta vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Another), reported in (2022) 15 SCC 44,
quashed the proceedings under Section 376 IPC on the basis of compromise
between the parties and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
victim was a young lady of 23 years and she would be faced with agony of
undergoing the trial. The victim was not supporting the prosecution
case even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing
else than an acquittal. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be
amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already
overburdened criminal courts. The relevant paragraphs of the Kapil Gupta
(supra) are reproduced hereunder:-
"6. It further appears that subsequently, in the case arising out of Section
376 of the IPC, that is, FIR No.569 of 2020, the matter was amicably
settled and therefore, the petition for quashing the proceedings under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. came to be filed. By the impugned order, the
High Court has dismissed the said petition.
13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the
Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and
serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from
examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such
an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved
would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court
has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between
the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may
improve their mutual relationship.
14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to
what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an
application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led
and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should
be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such
an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial,
the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power.
NA528 No. 35388 of 2025
7
15. The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the
present case. Respondent No.2 is a young lady of 23 years. She feels that
going through trial in one case, where she is a complainant and in the
other case, wherein she is the accused would rob the prime of her youth.
She feels that if she is made to face the trial rather than getting any relief,
she would be faced with agony of undergoing the trial.
16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been filed, the
charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial has not yet
commenced. It is further to be noted that since the respondent No.2
herself is not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is
permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the
request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one
more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.
17. In that view of the matter, we find that though in a heinous or serious
crime like rape, the Court should not normally exercise the powers of
quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case and in order to give succour to Respondent No. 2 so that she
is saved from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one as a victim
and one as an accused, we find that this is a fit case wherein the
extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised to quash the criminal
proceedings.
18. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and proceedings in
the criminal cases arising out of following FIRs are quashed and set
aside:
1. FIR No.569/2020 registered at Police Station, Mehrauli,
New Delhi (Rape)
2. FIR No.824/2020, registered at Police Station, Mehrauli,
New Delhi (Extortion)"
14. I have gone through the allegations/charges against the accused/s and I
am of the opinion that these are not of such nature as would fall within the
excepted class of cases where quashing the proceeding and permitting the
accused to go unpunished, would have any detrimental effect on the society
at large. As the parties have already settled their dispute, there is no
NA528 No. 35388 of 2025
8
likelihood of conviction of the applicants. In fact, the charges against the
applicants stand impliedly withdrawn and abandoned, therefore, in order to
secure ends of justice, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
15. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into
compromise and appear to have settled their real disputes amicably, which
has also been verified by the Trial Court, copy of which report is on record.
Thus, it further appears that the opposite party no. 2, who would be the key
prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, have declared their
unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is
apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to
continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned trial court.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise
entered into between the parties and taking all these factors into
consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted
and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303,
Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State
of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat
(supra), Madhukar (supra) and Kapil Gupta (supra), the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
17. In view of the aforesaid, entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 774 of
2019 (State Vs. Nitin Shankhdhar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.
364 of 2018, under Sections 377, 376, 504, 323, 313 I.P.C., P.S. Bisauli,
District Budaun, as well as impugned charge sheet dated 20.01.2019 along
with cognizance order dated 03.04.2019, are hereby quashed qua the
applicants.
18. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
May 6, 2026
Radhika
Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…