Allahabad High Court
ANKUR JAINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR
- Decided
- Bench
- DEEPAK VERMA
Holding
The High Court held that, given the parties' settlement and lack of any useful purpose in continuing the prosecution, the proceedings under Section 354 IPC may be quashed under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The applicant, Ankur Jain, filed a Section 482 CrPC application seeking to quash the summons dated 23 March 2019 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1815 of 2017 (Bijendra Kumar Jain v. Ankur Jain) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, under Section 354 IPC. Both parties had amicably settled the dispute out of court, and the trial court verified the compromise. The opposite party (party No.2) expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court quashed the summons and the entire criminal proceedings, allowing the Section 482 application.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted to quash proceedings in a case involving a cognizable, non‑compoundable offence under Section 354 IPC under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- cognizable offence
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 354 IPC
- settlement
- high court inherent powers
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16327 of 2019
Ankur Jain
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Anr
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nipun Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gaurav Kakkar, Sumit Suri
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant, and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 428 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the
summoning order dated 23.3.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Baghpat as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case
No.1815 of 2017 (Bijendra Kumar Jain Vs. Ankur Jain), pending before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, under section 354 of I.P.C.,
Station Police Baraut, District Baghpat.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite
party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant
approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this 482 application with prayer
to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the
parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 4.11.2025 sent the matter to
trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial
court vide order dated 18.11.2025 verified the parties as well as
compromise application. He further submitted that applicant and opposite
party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want
to proceed the matter against the applicant. He further submitted that
applicant 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 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.
A482 No. 16327 of 2019
2
4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute
the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the
applicant 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.
5. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute
out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 23.3.2019, passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat as well as the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No.1815 of 2017 (Bijendra Kumar Jain
Vs. Ankur Jain), pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat,
under section 354 of I.P.C., Station Police Baraut, District Baghpat is
hereby quashed.
9. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
March 19, 2026
KJ
Digitally signed by :-
KAMARJAHAN ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…