Allahabad High Court

SANJEEV BALMIKI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: DEEPAK VERMA

Holding

The High Court held that the proceedings are quashed as the parties have mutually settled the dispute.

Summary

The applicants filed a Section 528 B.N.S.S. application seeking to quash a criminal complaint (Case No. 5319 of 2023) filed under Sections 498A, 504 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging domestic violence. The complaint arose from a matrimonial dispute between the husband (applicant No.1) and his wife (opposite party No.2), but the parties later entered into a compromise dated 15‑12‑2025 and the wife expressed no desire to continue the prosecution. The trial court verified the compromise on 25‑02‑2026 and reported the same to the High Court. Both parties consented to the quashment, and the court, relying on established Supreme Court precedents regarding the effect of compromise in criminal matters, ordered the proceedings to be quashed. The application was allowed, effectively terminating the criminal case.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 504 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed on the basis of a mutual compromise between the parties under Section 528 B.N.S.S.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

Section 528 application
quash of criminal proceedings
compromise settlement
domestic violence
IPC 498A
Dowry Prohibition Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7055 of 2026

Sanjeev Balmiki And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sudhanshu Pratap Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the summoning order
dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur as well as entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No.5319 of 2023 (Smt.Sanju alias Sanjna vs. Sanjeev Balmiki &
others), under Sections 498A, 504 I.P.C.& 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before
the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar,
Shahjahanpur on the basis of compromise dated 15.12.2025.

3. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant no.1 is husband of opposite party
no.2 and on account of some matrimonial dispute, complaint has lodged by opposite
party no.2. Now parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into
compromise and opposite party no.2 is residing with the applicants. Applicants have
filed the present complaint to quash the proceeding on the ground of compromise
dated 15.12.2025. No dispute remain pending between the parties. He next submitted
that this Court by order dated 19.02.2026 directed both the parties to appear before
trial court for verification of compromise.

4. Pursuant to the said order dated 19.02.2026, the parties appeared before the court
below and trial court identified and verified the parties through their counsel on
25.02.2026 and verification report is forwarded to this Court through letter dated
06.04.2026.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants and opposite
party no.2 have settled their private and civil dispute through compromise 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 applicant and in view
of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed
NA528 No. 7055 of 2026
2

to go on.

6. 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 He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no
objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant and opposite party
no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. There is no dispute
remain pending between the parties. The matter has been mutually settled between the
parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter
further.

8. Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matters of Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 0
Supreme(SC) 529, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and
Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another; 2017 9 SCC 641, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of
Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation
and another; (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, Gian Singh Vs. Stated of
Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and
another; (2014) Supreme Today 642, the proceedings of the Complaint Case
No.3565 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C.& 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
P.S. Mahila Thana, District Hathras, pending before the court of Civil Judge
(Junior Division), F.T.C.-II, Hathras is hereby quashed.

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

May 7, 2026
SKD
(Deepak Verma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SURJIT KUMAR DEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…