Allahabad High Court
ANAS AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court held that, in view of the parties' settlement and established Supreme Court jurisprudence, the criminal proceedings may be quashed even for non‑compoundable offences.
Summary
The applicants (Anas and six others) filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings pending against them for offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 354 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants claimed that they had amicably settled the dispute with the second opposite party and that the latter was willing to withdraw the prosecution. The State, represented by the Advocate General, concurred that the parties had reached a compromise. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, such as Narindra Singh v. State of Punjab and others. Finding no useful purpose in continuing the trial, the Court quashed the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding. The application under Section 528 was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be the basis for quashing criminal proceedings in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. permits the High Court to dismiss a case on the ground of settlement between the parties.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354, 498-A, 504
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceedings
- Section 528
- non‑compoundable offences
- dowry prohibition
- IPC
- settlement
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37503 of 2026
Anas And 6 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nigamendra Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jyoti Kumar
Singh, 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 dated 27.01.2026,
cognizance/summoning order dated 26.02.2026 and entire criminal
proceedings of Case No.2827 of 2026 (State Vs Anas and others) arising
out of Case Crime No.671 of 2025, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 354
IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Pilkhuwa, District
Hapur, pending in Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.
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.25431 of 2026 with prayer to quash the proceedings in terms of
compromise entered between the parties and this Court vide order dated
06.07.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for
verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide
order dated 03.08.2026 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
NA528 No. 37503 of 2026
2
prosecution is allowed to go on.
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 dated 27.01.2026, cognizance/summoning
order dated 26.02.2026 and entire criminal proceedings of Case No.2827
of 2026 (State Vs Anas and others) arising out of Case Crime No.671 of
2025, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 354 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, PS Pilkhuwa, District Hapur, pending in Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, 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…