Allahabad High Court
DILIP KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- NAND PRABHA SHUKLA
Holding
A criminal proceeding arising from a matrimonial dispute may be quashed under the High Court’s inherent powers (Section 482 CrPC) and Section 528 BNSS when the parties have reached a genuine settlement, even if the offences are non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS Act seeking quash of Criminal Case No. 935 of 2026, which arose from a matrimonial dispute and alleged offences under sections 85, 115(20), 152, 351 of the BNS Act and sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The parties had earlier settled the dispute through a mediation process and executed a settlement agreement dated 20 March 2026, which both sides affirmed in the High Court. The State and the second opposite party consented to the quashal, and the court examined the settled law on the inherent power of High Courts to dismiss criminal proceedings where a genuine compromise exists, even for non‑compoundable offences. Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat and the recent Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani case, the court held that the settlement removed any public interest in continuing the prosecution. Accordingly, the court exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR, summoning order and the entire criminal proceeding. The application was allowed and the case was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the parties even when the offences are non‑compoundable.
- Whether Section 528 of the BNSS Act empowers the High Court to quash the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding.
- Whether the consent of both parties and the existence of a genuine settlement suffice to invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 115(20), 152, 351, 85
- BNSS Act — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- settlement
- matrimonial dispute
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- non‑compoundable offences
- mediation
- compromise
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8159 of 2026
Dilip Kumar And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar, Ramanveer Singh
Varma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to
allow this application and to quash the entire criminal proceeding in
charge-sheet dated 14.10.2025, cognizance order dated 17.01.2026,
Criminal Case No. 935 of 2026 (State of U.P. Vs. Dilip Kumar and
Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 393 of 2025 under sections 85,
115(20, 152, 351 BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gandhi Park,
District Aligarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.01, Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant matter was
referred to the Allahabad High Court Mediation & Conciliation in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23536 of 2025 (Dilip Kumar and 6
Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) vide order dated 07.11.2025
wherein parties have settled the dispute in Mediation Case No. 5707 of
2025 through Settlement Agreement dated 20.03.2026.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute
arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicants and the opposite
party No.2. It is also argued that the parties have willingly entered into a
settlement and not under duress or threat or coercion and are not
interested in pursuing the matter pending in the Court concerned and,
therefore, the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of
NA528 No. 8159 of 2026
2
compromise between the parties and they do not propose to file the
counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 admits the arguments of
learned counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the
impugned proceeding pending against the applicants, is quashed.
6. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the
submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties.
7. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled.
8. In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and
Others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, it has
been held that "High Courts have the inherent power under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash First Information Reports (FIRs) and
criminal proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes where a genuine settlement
has been reached between the parties. The Court clarified that Section 320 Cr.P.C.,
which lists compoundable offences, does not restrict this power, and exercising it is
crucial for promoting amicable settlements and serving the ends of justice, even if the
offences are otherwise non-compoundable."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench Judgment in
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012)10 SCC 303, has
held that "But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil
flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another,
(2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the
NA528 No. 8159 of 2026
3
criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground
that "even in the non compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal
proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and
utilized in other material cases."
11. The parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending amongst
them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the law as cited
above, the present case is a good case for exercise of power by the Court
to quash summoning order as well as entire proceedings.
12. The dispute appears to be purely of a matrimonial in nature that has
been mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction,
therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution
to continue any longer.
13. The present application for quashing filed under Section 528 BNSS
comes within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019 dated
02.09.2025.
14. In terms of mediation report of Allahabad High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 935 of
2026 (State of U.P. Vs. Dilip Kumar and Others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 393 of 2025 under sections 85, 115(20, 152, 351 BNS and 3/4
D.P. Act, Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, pending in the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Aligarh are
hereby quashed.
15. The present application under Section 528 BNSS is, accordingly,
allowed.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
March 23, 2026
Puspendra
Digitally signed by :-
PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…