Allahabad High Court

UMASHANKAR SHARMA ALIAS UMASHANKAR GAURversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 24 March 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The Court held that where a genuine, voluntary compromise has been verified, the criminal proceeding may be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the summoning order dated 21‑09‑2012 and the entire criminal proceeding (Complaint No. 4511 of 2011) under Section 307 IPC. Both parties claimed they had reached a free and voluntary compromise, which was verified by the trial court as directed by a coordinate bench. The respondent counsel raised no objection to the quashment. The High Court examined the settled case law on quashing criminal matters on the basis of settlement and found the compromise to be genuine and without coercion. Relying on several Supreme Court decisions, the Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the summoning order and the pending criminal proceeding. Consequently, the application was allowed and the proceedings were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal case under Section 307 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the summoning order and the proceeding after verification of the compromise.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 307

Subjects

compromise
quash
inherent powers
Section 482 CrPC
Section 307 IPC
settlement
criminal procedure
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1695 of 2025

Umashankar Sharma Alias Umashankar Gaur
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Zakir
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satish Kumar Mishra

Court No. - 81
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Sri Satish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash
the summoning order dated 21.09.2012 as well as entire proceeding against
the applicant in Complaint Case No. 4511 of 2011, under Section 307
I.P.C., Police Station Naraura, District Bulandshahr on the basis of
compromise.

3. The parties before this Court had made a request that they have entered
into a compromise in this matter and have settled all the disputes between
them and now they do not want to proceed with this matter.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before this Court that the
compromise entered into between the parties has been made without any
coercion or undue influence upon the complainant of this case and is a result
of free will and consent of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 could not dispute the
arguments as aforesaid and states that he has no objection if the impugned
proceeding pending against the applicant is quashed.

6. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025 directed the
learned trial court to verify the compromise deed in presence of both the
parties and in compliance of the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by this
Court, learned trial court submitted its verification report dated 21.05.2025
A482 No. 1695 of 2025
2

to this Court.

7. It appears from perusal of the record that the compromise between the
parties is the result of free will and consent of the complainant-opposite
party no. 2 without any coercion or undue influence.

8. In view of that, this Court finds that since the parties have entered into
compromise which has already been verified by the trial court, now nothing
rests in this matter to continue.

9. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of
(1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC
675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9
SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4)
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and
others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6)
Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State
of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which
the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

10. The law is well-settled by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the
present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash
the summoning order dated 21.09.2012 as well as entire proceeding against
the applicant in Complaint Case No. 4511 of 2011, under Section 307
I.P.C., Police Station Naraura, District Bulandshahr.

11. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

12. Hence, summoning order dated 21.09.2012 as well as entire proceeding
against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 4511 of 2011, under Section
307 I.P.C., Police Station Naraura, District Bulandshahr, are, hereby,
quashed in terms of the compromise

March 25, 2026
Rmk.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…