Allahabad High Court
SUYASH BARANWAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that, despite the cognizable and non‑compoundable nature of the offences, a valid compromise between the parties can be permitted and the criminal proceedings may be quashed.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 17066 of 2025, which involved offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 427 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties had reached a compromise on 10 June 2026, and the opposite party expressed a desire to withdraw the prosecution. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences and concluded that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the court quashed the entire criminal proceedings and allowed the application. The decision rests on the principle that a lawful compromise can extinguish criminal liability where the law permits.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash proceedings in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences such as those charged under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 427 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. to set aside the criminal case on the basis of a compromise.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 427, 498-A, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- criminal procedure
- Section 528 B.N.S.S.
- quashing of proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38810 of 2026
Suyash Baranwal And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, Nagendra
Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, 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 for
quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 17066 of 2025
(State Vs. Suyash Baranwal and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506, 406, 427 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana,
District Deoria, arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 2024, pending in the
court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C.-II, Deoria on the basis of
compromise dated 10.06.2026.
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 under Section
528 BNSS with prayer to quash the proceedings in terms of compromise
entered between the parties and this Court vide order dated 29.07.2026
directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the
parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated
19.08.2026 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 prosecution is
NA528 No. 38810 of 2026
2
allowed to go on.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and 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 Criminal Case No. 17066 of 2025
(State Vs. Suyash Baranwal and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506, 406, 427 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana,
District Deoria, arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 2024, pending in the
court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C.-II, Deoria, are hereby quashed
in terms of compromise dated 10.06.2026.
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 15, 2026
v.k. updh.
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…