Allahabad High Court
SACHIN KUMAR AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court held that, given the parties’ settlement and lack of any useful purpose in continuing, the criminal proceedings were to be quashed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The applicants, Sachin Kumar and six others, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 5359 of 2024) pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑3, Moradabad, which involved offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties had reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the opposite party (Party 2) consented to withdraw the prosecution. Both sides submitted that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even in certain cognizable, non‑compoundable offences, verified the parties and the compromise and consequently quashed the criminal proceedings. The application under Section 528 was allowed, resulting in the dismissal of the case.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise between parties be permitted to quash criminal proceedings in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences such as 498A, 323, 504, 34 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act?
- Does Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. empower the High Court to dismiss a criminal case on the basis of a settlement and withdrawal of prosecution?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 498A, 504
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528
- High Court
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- IPC
- settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36201 of 2026
Sachin Kumar And 6 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Shanker Malviya, Rajendra Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Taj Uddin Siddiqui
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Jai Shanker Malviya learned counsel for applicants, Sri Taj
Uddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 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 entire proceeding of Case
No.5359 of 2024 (State Vs. Sachin Kumar and others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 415 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 34 I.P.C., Section
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Pakwada, District- Moradabad,
pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3,
Moradabad.
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 7.4.2026 passed in Application U/S
528 BNSS No.13941 of 2026, directed the parties to appear before the
trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial
court vide order dated 5.8.2026 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 submitted that
NA528 No. 36201 of 2026
2
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 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.
5. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute
out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.5359 of 2024 (State Vs.
Sachin Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 415 of 2023,
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 34 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act, Police Station-Pakwada, District- Moradabad are hereby quashed.
NA528 No. 36201 of 2026
3
9. 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…