Allahabad High Court

MUNNA LAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

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

Summary

The applicants Munna Lal and others were charged under IPC sections 498‑A, 354Ka, 323, 504 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for a dowry‑related offence. They later settled the dispute out of court and filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking quash of the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding. The trial court verified the compromise, and both the opposite party and the State’s AGA consented to withdrawal of the prosecution. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even in certain cognizable, non‑compoundable offences, the High Court held that continuing the case would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the entire proceeding were quashed and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can lead to quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 B.N.S.S. in cases involving non‑compoundable offences such as IPC 498‑A, 354Ka, 323, 504 and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354Ka, 498-A, 504

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528
dowry harassment
IPC
Dowry Prohibition Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 52105 of 2025

Munna Lal And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Verma, Gaurav Singh
Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Singh Tomar, learned counsel for applicants, Sri
Santosh Kumar Verma, 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 charge sheet dated 14.05.2021 as
well as cognizance and summoning order dated 29.06.2021 and entire
proceeding of Case No.3245 of 2021 (State Vs. Munna Lal and others)
arising out of Case Crime No.0184 of 2021, U/s 498-A, 354Ka, 323, 504,
of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali
Orai, District-Jalaun, pending in the Court learned Chief Judicial of
Magistrate, Jalaun, at Orai.

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 24.3.2026 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. 52105 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 charge sheet dated 14.05.2021 as well as cognizance
and summoning order dated 29.06.2021 and entire proceeding of Case
No.3245 of 2021 (State Vs. Munna Lal and others) arising out of Case
Crime No.0184 of 2021, U/s 498-A, 354Ka, 323, 504, of I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District-
Jalaun are hereby quashed.
NA528 No. 52105 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…