Allahabad High Court
RAJENDRA PRASAD BHASKAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that, on account of a verified compromise, the criminal proceedings were to be quashed as no useful purpose would be served by their continuation.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Act seeking to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in Criminal Case No. 2307 of 2025, which arose from a complaint under Sections 498‑A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants and the second opposite party had settled the dispute out of court and the latter expressed willingness to withdraw the prosecution. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the charge sheet, cognizance order and all proceedings were quashed. The application under Section 528 was allowed.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise between parties lead to the quashing of proceedings in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences such as 498‑A, 323, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act?
- Does Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Act empower the court to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order on the basis of a verified compromise?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. Act — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498-A, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- High Court of Allahabad
- settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36470 of 2026
Rajendra Prasad Bhaskar And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kali Charan Yadav
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 24.11.2023 as well as
cognizance order dated 10.03.2025 and entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 2307 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhaskar and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 104 of 2023, under Sections 498-
A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Karma, District
Sonbhadra, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (F.T.C.)
(C.A.W.), Sonbhadra.
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. 14184 of 2026 with prayer to quash the proceedings in terms
of compromise entered between the parties and this Court vide order
dated 16.04.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for
verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide
order dated 19.05.2026 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. 36470 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 24.11.2023 as well as cognizance
order dated 10.03.2025 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2307
of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhaskar and others), arising
out of Case Crime No. 104 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC
and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Karma, District Sonbhadra, pending in
the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (F.T.C.) (C.A.W.), Sonbhadra,
are hereby quashed in terms of compromise.
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 16, 2026
Rmk.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…