Allahabad High Court

RIZWAN ALI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The court held that, in view of the parties' settlement and established Supreme Court jurisprudence, the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No.30 of 2014) arising from an FIR under IPC sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. The parties had reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the opposite party consented to withdraw the prosecution. Both counsel accepted the settlement and the AGA for the State concurred. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit compromise even for cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceedings and allowed the application.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash criminal proceedings for offences under IPC sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4.
Whether Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. empowers the court to dismiss the case on the basis of settlement.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506

Subjects

compromise
criminal procedure
quash of proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528 B.N.S.S.
IPC
Dowry Prohibition Act
settlement

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 52053 of 2025

Rizwan Ali And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mukesh Joshi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jainendra Kumar Sharma

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

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Akash
Kumar Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Jainendra Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by
the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of
Case No.30 of 2014 (State Vs. Mohd. Rizwan and others) arising out of
Case crime No.57 of 2013 (F.I.R. No.60 of 2013), U/S- 498A 323, 504,
506 I.P.C., & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-
Moradabad, pending in the, Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) /F.T.C.
(CAW) Moradabad in terms of compromise made between the parties.

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 9.3.2026 directed the parties to appear
before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise
application. Trial court vide order dated 01.04.2026 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
NA528 No. 52053 of 2025
2

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.30 of 2014 (State Vs. Mohd.
Rizwan and others) arising out of Case crime No.57 of 2013 (F.I.R. No.60
of 2013), U/S- 498A 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-
Mahila Thana, District-Moradabad, pending in the, Court of learned Civil
Judge (J.D.) /F.T.C. (CAW) Moradabad are hereby quashed.
NA528 No. 52053 of 2025
3

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

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 17, 2026
Md Faisal

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…