Allahabad High Court

EHASAN @ SABUR ALI AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The court held that where parties have settled and there is no useful purpose in continuing, the proceedings can be quashed even for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under Section 528 B.N.S.S.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding (Criminal Case No.23112 of 2026) arising from offences under Sections 115(2), 85, 351(3) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants and opposite party No.2 claimed that they had amicably settled the dispute and that the opposite party was willing to withdraw the prosecution. The trial court verified the parties and the compromise application, and the opposite party expressed no objection to quashing the case. The High Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions allowing compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Considering the settlement and the lack of any useful purpose in continuing the prosecution, the Court held that the proceedings could be quashed. Consequently, the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal case were set aside. The application under Section 528 was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash proceedings in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.
Whether the High Court may set aside a charge sheet and cognizance order on the basis of a verified settlement.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 115(2), 351(3), 85
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528
non‑compoundable offence
Dowry Prohibition Act
settlement
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37227 of 2026

Ehasan @ Sabur Ali And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of Up And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Shahrukh Wasim Ansari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Sri Anees Baig, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite
party No.2

2. Heard Sri Mohd Shahrukh Wasim Ansari learned counsel for
applicants, Sri Anees Baig, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and
learned AGA for the State.

3. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by
the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 20.04.2026,
impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 17.06.2026 and entire
proceeding giving rise to Criminal Case No.23112 of 2026 (State Vs.
Mohd. Ehasan @ Sabur Ali and others) arising out of Case Crime No.41
of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 85, 351(3) of BNS and under Section 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Matsena, District-Firozabad, pending in
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.

4. 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 4.8.2026 passed in Application U/S
528 BNSS No.31678 of 2026, directed the parties to appear before the
trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial
court vide order dated 12.8.2026 verified the parties as well as
compromise application. He further submitted that applicants and
NA528 No. 37227 of 2026
2

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 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.

5. 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.

6. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute
out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly, the proceedings of charge sheet dated 20.04.2026,
impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 17.06.2026 and entire
proceeding giving rise to Criminal Case No.23112 of 2026 (State Vs.
NA528 No. 37227 of 2026
3

Mohd. Ehasan @ Sabur Ali and others) arising out of Case Crime No.41
of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 85, 351(3) of BNS and under Section 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Matsena, District-Firozabad are hereby
quashed.

10. 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…