Allahabad High Court

RAM KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court held that, given the parties’ settlement and lack of any useful purpose in continuing the prosecution, the criminal proceedings were lawfully quashed.

Summary

The applicants, Ram Kumar and two others, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings (Case No. 540 of 2026) relating to offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of the BNSS and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants claimed that they had amicably settled the dispute with opposite party 2, who consented to withdraw the prosecution. The trial court verified the compromise, and both the opposite party’s counsel and the Assistant Government Advocate supported the withdrawal. 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 court quashed the charge sheet, cognizance order, and the entire criminal proceeding, allowing the application.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash proceedings in offences that are cognizable and non‑compoundable under Section 528 BNSS.
Whether the High Court may entertain an application to quash a charge sheet after verification of a settlement by the trial court.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 351(2), 352, 528, 85
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528 BNSS
non‑compoundable offences
dowry prohibition
settlement
high court order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37382 of 2026

Ram Kumar And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rinkoo
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Sri Ankit Pathak, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite
party No.2, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Rinkoo, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Ankit Pathak,
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 30.12.2025,
10.01.2026 and cognizance order dated 01.06.2026 as well as entire
criminal proceeding of Case No. 540 of 2026 (State Versus Ram Kumar
and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1142 of 2025, under Section
85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Baradari, District- Bareilly which is pending in the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Bareilly.

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 15.7.2026 passed in Application U/S
528 BNSS No.26786 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
NA528 No. 37382 of 2026
2

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 30.12.2025,
10.01.2026 and cognizance order dated 01.06.2026 as well as entire
criminal proceeding of Case No. 540 of 2026 (State Versus Ram Kumar
and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1142 of 2025, under Section
NA528 No. 37382 of 2026
3

85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Baradari, District- Bareilly 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…