Allahabad High Court
AKHILESH KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that a compromise can be permitted even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, and therefore quashed the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire proceedings.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings arising from a case involving offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties had amicably settled the dispute out of court, and the opposite party expressed willingness to withdraw the prosecution. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Relying on those decisions, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the charge sheet, cognizance order and all proceedings were quashed, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise between parties lead to the quash of criminal proceedings in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences?
- Whether the court may exercise its power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order upon settlement of the dispute.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498-A, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- quash of charge sheet
- Section 528 BNSS
- criminal procedure
- settlement
- High Court
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39487 of 2026
Akhilesh Kumar And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunal Singh
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 dated 21.02.2016, cognizance order
dated 14.07.2016 and entire proceedings of Case No. 4977 of 2016 (State
Versus Akhilesh Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 542
under of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.
Act, Police Station- Baradari, District Bareilly, pending before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 02, 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 Application under Section 528
BNSS No.29537 of 2026 with the prayer to quash the proceedings in
terms of compromise entered between the parties and this Court vide
order dated 23.07.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court
for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court
vide order dated 18.08.2026 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 allowed to go on.
NA528 No. 39487 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 dated 21.02.2016, cognizance order dated
14.07.2016 and entire proceedings of Case No. 4977 of 2016 (State
Versus Akhilesh Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 542
under of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.
Act, Police Station- Baradari, District Bareilly, pending before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 02, Bareilly, are hereby
quashed in terms of compromise.
8. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 17, 2026
Rmk.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…