Allahabad High Court
DEVESH KUMAR AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that, given the parties' settlement and lack of public interest, the criminal proceedings must be quashed.
Summary
The applicants, Devesh Kumar and five others, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Act seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 16‑09‑2020 and the ensuing criminal proceedings (Case No. 9990 of 2021) relating to offences under IPC sections 498‑A, 323 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. The applicants claimed that they had amicably settled the dispute with the private complainant (opposite party No.2) and that the complainant was willing to withdraw the prosecution. The complainant’s counsel concurred and raised no objection to the quashment. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents permitting compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court quashed the charge sheet, the cognizance order, and the entire criminal proceeding, and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between the accused and the private complainant can justify quashing criminal proceedings for offences under IPC 498‑A, 323 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4.
- Whether the High Court can entertain an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Act to set aside a charge sheet and cognizance order.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. Act — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498-A
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceedings
- Section 528
- non‑compoundable offences
- dowry death
- IPC 498-A
- settlement
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37359 of 2026
Devesh Kumar And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Sri K.N. Tripathi, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite
party No.2, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Manoj Pandey, learned counsel for applicants, Sri K.N.
Tripathi, 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 16.09.2020
along with cognizance order dated 28.07.2021 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad as well as entire criminal proceeding of
Case No. 9990 of 2021 (State Vs. Devesh Kumar and others) arising out
of case crime No. 107 of 2020, under section 498-A, 323 of I.P.C. and
section- 3/4 of D.P. Act, at Police Station Katghar, District-Moradabad.
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 7.7.2026, passed in Application U/S
528 BNSS No.24391 of 2026, directed the parties to appear before the
trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial
court vide order dated 21.7.2026 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
NA528 No. 37359 of 2026
2
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 16.09.2020 along
with cognizance order dated 28.07.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Moradabad as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No.
9990 of 2021 (State Vs. Devesh Kumar and others) arising out of case
NA528 No. 37359 of 2026
3
crime No. 107 of 2020, under section 498-A, 323 of I.P.C. and section-
3/4 of D.P. Act, at Police Station Katghar, District-Moradabad 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
Checking your session…