Allahabad High Court

SONU SINGH @ PARAM JEET SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court held that the criminal proceedings are to be quashed as the compromise is permissible even for the cognizable, non‑compoundable offences involved.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 10472 of 2026, which arose from a complaint under sections 498A, 323 IPC and sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The applicants claimed that they had reached a full and amicable compromise with the second opposite party, who no longer wished to pursue the prosecution. The State (opposite party No.1) raised no objection to the compromise and agreed to the quashal of the proceedings. The Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions that permit compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. Finding that continuation of the trial would serve no useful purpose, the Court allowed the Section 528 application and quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash pending criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. in cases involving cognizable and non‑compoundable offences such as sections 498A and 323 IPC and the D.P. Act.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to order quashal of the criminal case on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Domestic Violence (Prevention) Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A

Subjects

compromise
criminal procedure
Section 528
non‑compoundable offence
quash
498A IPC
323 IPC
Domestic Violence Act
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41651 of 2026

Sonu Singh @ Param Jeet Singh And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amar Jeet Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Amar Jeet Upadhyay 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 entire criminal
proceeding of Criminal Case No. 10472 of 2026 (State Vs. Sonu Singh @
Param Jeet Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 69 of 2025,
under section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-
Hastinapur, District-Meerut, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate
3rd Meerut on the basis of compromise.

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 9.7.2026, passed in Application U/S
528 BNSS No.26876 of 2026, directed the parties to appear before the
trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial
court vide order dated 6.8.2026 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 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. 41651 of 2026
2

compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is
allowed to go on.

4. Learned AGA 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 he has no objection, if the
proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

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, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10472 of 2026
(State Vs. Sonu Singh @ Param Jeet Singh and others), arising out of
Case Crime no. 69 of 2025, under section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and section
3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Hastinapur, District-Meerut, pending in the
court of Judicial Magistrate 3rd Meerut are hereby quashed in respect of
present applicants.

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

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 29, 2026
Md Faisal

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…