Allahabad High Court

AKASH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 24 March 2026
Bench: NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the genuine settlement between the parties justified the exercise of its inherent power to dismiss the case.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Act seeking to quash the charge sheet, summons and the entire criminal proceeding (Criminal Case No. 6559 of 2024) arising from a matrimonial dispute involving offences under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties had entered into a voluntary compromise dated 19 March 2025, which was verified by the Judicial Magistrate. Both counsel accepted the settlement and did not contest the quashal. Relying on the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and Supreme Court precedents (B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, Parbatbhai Ahir, Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani), the Court held that the settlement removed any prospect of conviction and continuation would cause injustice. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding and allowed the application.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the parties.
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIRs and proceedings even when the offences are non‑compoundable.
Whether the settlement under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Act is sufficient to bar continuation of the case.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. Act — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320, 482
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A

Subjects

settlement
matrimonial dispute
quashment of criminal proceedings
inherent jurisdiction
Section 482 CrPC
non‑compoundable offences
Dowry Prohibition Act
Section 528 B.N.S.S.

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9510 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dipendra Kumar, Mritunjay Rai, Pradeep
Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Dipendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred to
quash the Charge sheet dated 25.12.2023, Cognizance/Summoning Order
dated 06.04.2024 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.
6559 of 2024 (State Vs. Akash & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 245
of 2023 under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police
Station-Kithaur, District-Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Civil
Judge (J.D.), (C.A.W.), Meerut on the basis of Compromise dated
19.03.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have settled
their dispute through compromise dated 19.03.2025, placed as Annexure No.
'4' to the present application which has been duly verified by the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court
No. 2, Meerut vide order dated 03.01.2026.

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 compromise between the parties
and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.
NA528 No. 9510 of 2026
2

5. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for both the parties.

6. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled.

7. 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."

8. 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."

9. 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 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."

10. 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.
NA528 No. 9510 of 2026
3

11. 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.

12. The present application for quashing filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
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.

13. In view of above, the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 6559 of
2024 (State Vs. Akash & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 245 of 2023
under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-
Kithaur, District-Meerut, are hereby quashed.

14. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is, accordingly,
allowed.

March 25, 2026
Shivani
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…