Allahabad High Court
SHAMSUDDIN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- PRASHANT MISHRA I
Holding
The Court held that, given the parties’ valid compromise and the authority of Supreme Court precedents, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The applicants Shamsuddin and two others filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 seeking to quash Criminal Complaint No. 65 of 2022 (Najrana v. Samsuddin et al.) which alleged offences under IPC sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Protection Act. The parties had entered into a compromise on 16 March 2026, confirmed by an application dated 6 August 2026, and argued that continuation of prosecution would serve no useful purpose. The State’s Additional Government Advocate supported the compromise, citing that settlement is permissible even for certain cognizable, non‑compoundable offences. The Court relied on Supreme Court decisions (Narindra Singh v. State of Punjab, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayanan, and Shaifullah v. State of U.P.) which allow compromise in such cases. Finding the compromise genuine and the mediation report on record, the Court held that proceeding would be futile and quashed the entire criminal proceeding. The application under Section 528 was allowed.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise between parties lead to the quash of criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences such as IPC 498A, 323, 504, 506 and D.P. Act 3/4?
- Do the Supreme Court precedents permitting compromise in certain non‑compoundable offences apply to the present case?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Domestic Violence Protection Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528
- non‑compoundable offences
- mediation
- IPC 498A
- domestic violence
- cognizable offences
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39830 of 2026
Shamsuddin And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Mohd Intesaf
Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Kumar Maurya, Kaushal
Kant Dubey
Court No. - 84
HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri Sampurnanand, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kaushal Kant Dubey,
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed with
a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint No. 65 of 2022
(Najrana Vs. Samsuddin and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Line Bazar, District-
Jaunpur on the basis of compromise dated-16.03.2026/application dated
06.08.2026, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Crime
Against Women/ Judicial Magistrate Jaunpur.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the parties that compromise has taken
place between the parties in Complaint No. 65 of 2022 (Najrana Vs.
Samsuddin and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. &
Section 3/4 D.P. Act and opposite party no. 2 has, specifically, in her
application dated 06.08.2026 stated that parties have compromised the
matter and has prayed to put an end to the pending litigation. It is next
submitted that in view of the compromise so entered between the parties, no
fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that both the parties
have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, there is no reason to
NA528 No. 39830 of 2026
2
proceed further.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases 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 had 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 the learned counsels for the parties,
also going through the record that report of the mediation and conciliation
centre is on record which reflects that parties have entered into compromise
in the matter, 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 entire proceedings of Complaint No. 65 of 2022
(Najrana Vs. Samsuddin and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Line Bazar, District-
Jaunpur on the basis of compromise dated-16.03.2026/application dated
06.08.2026, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Crime
Against Women/ Judicial Magistrate Jaunpur, are hereby quashed.
8. This application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is accordingly
allowed.
(Prashant Mishra-I,J.)
September 29, 2026
A. Mandhani
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK MANDHANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…