Allahabad High Court

DHARMENDRA KUMAR DUBEY @ DHARMENDRA DUBEY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 15 April 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The court held that the proceedings must be quashed as the parties have settled the dispute and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.

Summary

The applicants filed a Section 528 CrPC application seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 716 of 2024) arising from offences under Sections 352, 323, 354, 452, 504 and 506 IPC. They claimed that the dispute with the second opposite party had been amicably settled and a compromise was entered, which was verified by the trial court. Both the second opposite party and the Additional Government Advocate concurred that there was no objection to quashing the case. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceedings and allowed the Section 528 application.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 352, 323, 354, 452, 504 and 506 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC.
Whether a compromise is permissible for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 352, 354, 452, 504, 506

Subjects

compromise
Section 528 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
settlement
IPC offences

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40641 of 2025

Dharmendra Kumar Dubey @ Dharmendra Dubey
And Another .....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Janardan Prasad Tripathi, Shashi
Bhushan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar Tiwari, G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Shashi Bhushan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants,
Smt. Ruchi Kashyap, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari,
learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the entire
proceeding of Case No.716 of 2024 (State vs. Akshay Debey & Anr.)
arising out of Case Crime No.326 of 2022 under Sections 352, 323, 354,
452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tharwai, District Prayagraj as
well as summoning order dated 7.10.2024 passed by learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate 5th, Allahabad.

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 Hon'ble Court by filing this 528 BNSS
application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise
entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 10.2.2026
directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the
parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated
13.3.2026 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He
further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 compromised the
NA528 No. 40641 of 2025
2

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 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 Case No.716 of 2024 (State vs.
Akshay Debey & Anr.) arising out of Case Crime No.326 of 2022 under
Sections 352, 323, 354, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tharwai,
District Prayagraj as well as summoning order dated 7.10.2024 passed by
learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 5th, Allahabad are hereby
NA528 No. 40641 of 2025
3

quashed.

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

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

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…