Allahabad High Court
NA528/37382/2026 of RAM KUMAR AND 2 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 7 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37382 of 2026 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Sri Ankit Pathak, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rinkoo, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Ankit Pathak, learned
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37382 of 2026
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
3
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Sri Ankit Pathak, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Rinkoo, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Ankit Pathak, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State.
3. 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 30.12.2025, 10.01.2026 and cognizance order dated 01.06.2026 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 540 of 2026 (State Versus Ram Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1142 of 2025, under Section 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Baradari, District- Bareilly which is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Bareilly.
4. 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 15.7.2026 passed in Application U/S 528 BNSS No.26786 of 2026, directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 5.8.2026 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rinkoo Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ram Kumar And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through 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.
5. 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.
6. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Accordingly, the proceedings of charge sheet dated 30.12.2025, 10.01.2026 and cognizance order dated 01.06.2026 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 540 of 2026 (State Versus Ram Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1142 of 2025, under Section NA528 No. 37382 of 2026
85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Baradari, District- Bareilly are hereby quashed.
10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed. September 8, 2026 Md Faisal NA528 No. 37382 of 2026
(Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad