Allahabad High Court

TAJEEM AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court held that, in view of the parties’ compromise and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, the criminal proceedings were to be quashed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 25394/9 of 2025) arising from offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3), 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties had reached an out‑of‑court compromise, and the opposite party expressed a desire to withdraw the prosecution. The State’s Additional Government Advocate concurred that the dispute was settled. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Considering the compromise and lack of any useful purpose in continuing the trial, the High Court quashed the entire proceedings. The application under Section 528 was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash pending criminal proceedings involving cognizable and non‑compoundable offences under the B.N.S. and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to dismiss the case under Section 528 B.N.S.S. on the basis of a settlement.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

compromise
criminal procedure
Section 528
quash of proceedings
non‑compoundable offence
dowry prohibition
Allahabad High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37481 of 2026

Tajeem And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Nasir
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 entire proceedings of Case No. 25394/9 of
2025 (State versus Tajeem and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 164
of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2) 351(3), 351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station- Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar,
pending before the court Chief Judicial Magistrate Muzaffar Nagar, in
light of the compromise.

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. 241 of 2026 with prayer to quash the proceedings in terms of
compromise entered between the parties and this Court vide order dated
01.04.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for
verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide
order dated 22.06.2026 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
prosecution is allowed to go on.
NA528 No. 37481 of 2026
2

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, entire proceedings of Case No. 25394/9 of 2025 (State
versus Tajeem and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 164 of 2025,
under Sections 85, 115(2) 351(3), 351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station- Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar,
pending before the court Chief Judicial Magistrate Muzaffar Nagar, are
hereby quashed in terms of compromise.

8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 9, 2026
Rmk.

Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…