Allahabad High Court
TARUN VERMA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The court held that the proceedings are to be quashed as the parties’ 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 proceedings (Case No. 8166 of 2024) arising from offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants and the second opposite party had reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the trial court verified the compromise. Both parties consented to withdraw the prosecution, and the State raised no objection to quashing the case. The High Court examined precedent that permits compromise even in cognizable, non‑compoundable offences, citing several Supreme Court decisions. Finding no useful purpose in continuing the trial, the Court quashed the proceedings against the applicants and allowed the Section 528 application.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can lead to quashing of criminal proceedings for cognizable, non‑compoundable offences under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. empowers the court to dismiss the case on the basis of such a compromise.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3/4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash
- Section 528
- non‑compoundable offences
- criminal procedure
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- IPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42465 of 2026
Tarun Verma And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : G.S.Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri G. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for applicants 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 Case no. 8166 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Tarun Verma and
other), arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2024, under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 506, I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-
Mahila Thana, District -Jhansi, pending before the Court of learned Civil
Judge (J.D./FTC) (CAW) Jhansi.
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 13.8.2026 passed in Application U/S
482 No.22166 of 2024, directed the parties to appear before the trial court
for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court
vide order dated 7.9.2026 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
NA528 No. 42465 of 2026
2
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 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 aforesaid case 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.)
October 1, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…