Allahabad High Court

DEEPESH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The court held that where parties have settled and there is no public interest in continuing the prosecution, the proceedings may be quashed even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in a criminal case involving Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties had reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the opposite party consented to withdraw the prosecution. Both counsel and the AGA accepted the settlement and raised no objection to quashing. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences where public interest is not jeopardised. Considering the settlement and lack of useful purpose in continuing the trial, the court quashed the proceedings against the applicants. The application under Section 528 was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can justify quashing criminal proceedings for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.
Whether the court may dismiss a charge sheet and proceedings when the victim consents to withdraw the case despite the nature of the offences.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504

Subjects

compromise
quash of proceedings
cognizable offence
non‑compoundable offence
Section 528
B.N.S.S.
IPC 498A
IPC 323
IPC 504
Dowry Prohibition Act
settlement
public interest

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40183 of 2025

Deepesh And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Dubey, Jai Raj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Shivankur Yadav, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Jai Raj,
learned counsel for applicants, Sri Shivankur Yadav, learned counsel for
opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been
filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated
19.07.2021, cognizance order dated 26.08.2021 and entire proceeding of
Case No.8133 of 2021 (State Vs. Deepesh and others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 181 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 of
D.P. Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Agra.

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 15.10.2025, directed the parties to
appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 27.10.2025 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 withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the
NA528 No. 40183 of 2025
2

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 proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed
in respect of present applicants.

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

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
October 1, 2026
Md Faisal

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…