Allahabad High Court

JARIF KHAN AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 15 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The court held that, given the parties' settlement and applicable Supreme Court authority, the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet and summons in Criminal Case No.10295 of 2026, arising from offences under sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 85 of the BNSS and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants and the second opposite party had amicably settled the dispute and the latter expressed no desire to continue prosecution. Both parties, including the State, consented to the withdrawal of the case. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the charge sheet, summoning order and the entire criminal proceedings were quashed, and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Can a compromise between parties lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under Section 528 of the BNSS?
Whether the court may set aside a charge sheet and summons on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. (presumably the relevant penal code) — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 85
B.N.S.S. (Section 528) — s. 528
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528
non‑compoundable offences
Dowry Prohibition Act
settlement
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39368 of 2026

Jarif Khan And 6 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicants, Sri
Sumit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 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 charge sheet No.21/2026 dated
12.02.2026 and impugned summoning order dated 16.07.2026 passed by
the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.7, Bareilly
as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.10295 of 2026 (State
Vs. Jarif Khan & others), arising out of Case Crime No.588/2025, under
sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 85 B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly, pending before the
learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.7, Bareilly.

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 17.8.2026 directed the parties to
appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 25.8.2026 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
NA528 No. 39368 of 2026
2

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 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 counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 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 opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in
the aforesaid case are quashed.

5. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute
out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the charge sheet No.21/2026 dated 12.02.2026 and
impugned summoning order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.7, Bareilly as well as
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.10295 of 2026 (State Vs. Jarif
Khan & others), arising out of Case Crime No.588/2025, under sections
115(2), 352, 351(3), 85 B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
NA528 No. 39368 of 2026
3

1961 Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly are hereby quashed.

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

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 16, 2026
Md Faisal

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…