Allahabad High Court

UDAY BHAN DIXIT AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: SANJIV KUMAR

Holding

The High Court held that, exercising its inherent powers, it may quash the criminal proceeding as the parties have mutually settled the dispute.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under the inherent powers of the High Court to quash Criminal Case No. 17162 of 2007, which involved charges under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The parties had amicably reconciled, executed a verified compromise deed, and the trial court had confirmed the compromise. Both the applicants' and the opposite party's counsel jointly submitted that the compromise was voluntary and that the dispute was purely private with no broader social impact. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the court’s inherent power to dispense with criminal proceedings where a settlement is reached, the High Court held that it could quash the case. Consequently, the application was allowed and the entire criminal proceeding was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a mutual compromise between the parties.
Whether offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC are compoundable and can be settled by the parties without further prosecution.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506

Subjects

compromise
inherent powers
quash
Section 482 CrPC
compoundable offences
private dispute
criminal proceeding

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10064 of 2024

Uday Bhan Dixit And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shashi Chood Pandey

Court No. - 83
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Shri Avinash Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri Akhilesh
Kumar Ojha, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shashi Chood Pandey, learned
Counsel for opposite party no.2 and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned
A.G.A on behalf of the State are present.

2. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicants, which
is taken on record.

3. This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing
the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 17162 of 2007 (State Vs. Uday
Bhan Dixit and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.235 of 2007, under
Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kakadev, District- Kanpur
Nagar, and charge-sheet dated 03.08.2007 as well as cognizance/
summoning order dated 06.11.2007, pending in the court of learned
Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)-1, Kanpur Nagar.

4. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the parties that both the
parties had re-conciled their differences on their own freewill and wish
without any pressure and now living peacefully. The verified compromise
deed and verification report of the learned trial court is being filed alongwith
the supplementary affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as opposite party No.2 jointly
submitted that vide order dated 04.06.2024, a direction was given to the trial
court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In
pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned trial court had verified the contents
of compromise.
A482 No. 10064 of 2024
2

6. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party
no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which
has been duly verified by the parties before the concerned trial court court
vide report dated 02.08.2024, annexed along with supplementary affidavit.

7. Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected
between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the trial court.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power
can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh
Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of
Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the
process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at
between the parties.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the parties do not wish
to pursue the case any further, the dispute is essentially of a private nature
and has no wider social impact. Since it has been mutually settled between
the parties by way of a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by
proceeding with the matter further.

10. For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed
and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 17162 of 2007 (State Vs.
Uday Bhan Dixit and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.235 of 2007,
under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kakadev, District-
Kanpur Nagar, and charge-sheet dated 03.08.2007 as well as cognizance/
summoning order dated 06.11.2007,, are hereby quashed.

May 5, 2026
AdityaG
(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA GAUTAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…