Allahabad High Court
NIKHIL JAIN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that, given a verified compromise and lack of public interest, the criminal proceedings must be quashed even though the offences are cognizable and non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants, Nikhil Jain and two others, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 6772 of 2023) that alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants claimed that they had reached a settlement with Opposite Party No. 2, which was verified by the trial court, and that the opposite party no longer wished to pursue the prosecution. The State (Opposite Party No. 1) raised no objection to the compromise. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceedings and allowed the Section 528 application.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash criminal proceedings involving cognizable and non‑compoundable offences under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is maintainable to obtain a quash order in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- criminal procedure
- quash order
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- IPC
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37720 of 2026
Nikhil Jain And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicants and
learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by
the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.
6772 of 2023 (State Vs. Nikhil Jain and others), arising out of Case Crime
No. 146 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and
section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Mahila Thana,
District Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division)/F.T.C., Saharanpur.
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 this application with prayer to
quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the
parties, this Court vide order dated 9.7.2026 passed in Application U/S
482 No.13494 of 2024, 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
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
NA528 No. 37720 of 2026
2
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.
4. Learned AGA 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 he has no objection, if the
proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
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, the proceedings of Case No. 6772 of 2023 (State Vs.
Nikhil Jain and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2023, under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur,
pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C.,
Saharanpur are hereby quashed.
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 9, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…