Allahabad High Court
ALI KURESHI AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The Court held that, given the parties' settlement, the criminal proceedings could be quashed even though the offences are cognizable and non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2207 of 2016, which involved offences under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants and the second opposite party had amicably settled the dispute outside court and the latter expressed a desire to withdraw the prosecution. The State, represented by the A.G., concurred that the matter was settled. 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 the entire criminal proceeding were quashed, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash proceedings in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. can be invoked to dismiss a charge sheet on the basis of a settlement.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A
Subjects
- compromise
- quash
- criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 528
- High Court
- IPC 498A
- IPC 323
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37484 of 2026
Ali Kureshi And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Najakat Ali
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 No. 334 of 2016 dated 25.10.2016,
cognizance/summoning order dated 22.12.2016 and entire proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 2207 of 2016 (State Vs Ali Husain and others), arising
out case Crime No. 314 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Ganj, District Rampur, pending in
the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Rampur.
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. 27574 of 2026 with the prayer to quash the proceedings in
terms of compromise entered between the parties and this Court vide
order dated 21.07.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court
for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court
vide order dated 27.07.2026 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. 37484 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, charge sheet No. 334 of 2016 dated 25.10.2016,
cognizance/summoning order dated 22.12.2016 and entire proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 2207 of 2016 (State Vs Ali Husain and others), arising
out case Crime No. 314 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Ganj, District Rampur, pending in
the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Rampur, 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
Checking your session…