Allowed¶19

Shabab and 4 Others v. State of Up through Its Principal Secretary (Home) at Luckno

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2026A482/23042/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise; matrimonial dispute; Sections 498A, 323, 506, 313 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; settlement of cognizable and non-compoundable offences out of court; Gian Singh; Narindra Singh; Parbatbhai Aahir; Laxmi Narayanan; Shaifullah; trial court verification of compromise (orders dated 20.03.2026 and 08.04.2026); Case Crime No. 31 of 2000; S.T. No. 1101 of 2002; P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut; death of complainant Smt. Sadma on 04.05.2018; reference to 528 BNSS application.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 1101 of 2002 (State Vs. Shabab and others) in terms of the compromise dated 01.08.2025; application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. ¶19

Shabab and 4 Others Vs State of Up through Its Principal… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 1101 of 2002 (State Vs. Shabab and others) in terms of the compromise dated 01.08.2025; application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 1101 of 2002 (State Vs. Shabab and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 31 of 2000 under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 313 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, should be quashed in terms of the compromise dated 01.08.2025 entered between the parties.

¶11

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions of counsel, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the aforesaid case, the parties having settled their dispute through compromise.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The entire proceedings of S.T. No. 1101 of 2002 are quashed in terms of the compromise dated 01.08.2025, and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Chawan Prakash, J.) allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Shabab and 4 others and quashed the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 1101 of 2002 (State Vs. Shabab and others) — arising out of Case Crime No. 31 of 2000, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 313 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, pending before the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut — in terms of a compromise dated 01.08.2025 between the applicants and opposite party no. 2. Relying on Narindra Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, and referring to Shaifullah v. State of U.P. [2013 (83) ACC 278], the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings where the parties had amicably settled their dispute; the parties and the compromise stood verified by the trial court by order dated 08.04.2026 pursuant to this Court's direction dated 20.03.2026. The judgment also records that opposite party no. 2, Smt. Sadma, died during trial on 04.05.2018, while simultaneously recording a compromise with her dated 01.08.2025; both facts are stated as printed in the text.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23042 of 2021

Shabab And 4 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of Up Through Its Principal At Luckno	Secretary (Home)	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Jamaluddin Mohd. Kumar Singh	Nasir, Satyendra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 79

¶8

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Jamaluddin, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized with Smt. Sadma, opposite party no. 2. He has next submitted that opposite party no. 2 has lodged a case at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut, which was registered as Case Crime No. 31 of 2000, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 313 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant nos. 1 to 5. After completing investigation, the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 313 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and charges have been framed against applicants. During trial statements of P.W.1 Smt. Sadma and P.W. 2 Abdul Jabbar, Smt. Praveen and constable Rameshwar have been recorded. He has further submitted that during trial opposite party no. 2 Smt. Sadma, wife of Shahab had died on 04.05.2018.

¶11

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 1101 of 2002 (State Vs. Shabab and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 313 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, arising out of Case Crime No. 31 of 2000, pending in the court of learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut, on the basis of compromise dated 01.08.2025.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant approached this Court by filing this 528 BNSS application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties,

¶13

A482 No. 23042 of 2021

¶14

¶15

this Court vide order dated 20.03.2026 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 08.04.2026 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 their dispute through compromise and, as such, opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. 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 to go on.

¶16

Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

¶17

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 noncompoundable 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Accordingly, entire proceedings of aforesaid case, are hereby quashed in terms of compromise dated 01.08.2025.

¶20

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed.

¶21

April 27, 2026 v.k. updh.

¶22

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shabab and 4 Others v. State of Up through Its Principal Secretary (Home) at Luckno

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabab and 4 Others v. State of Up through Its Principal Secretary (Home) at Luckno

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Dwivedi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulam Rasool and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajaruddin @ Salman Audi vs State of U.P. and Another

Shainky Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Patel and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another