Allahabad High Court

MAHENDRA AND 2 OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: SANJIV KUMAR

Holding

The High Court held that its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings as the parties had mutually compromised and the dispute was of a private nature.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the order dated 9 July 2024 and the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 1771 of 2021 (State v. Virendra and others) relating to offences under Sections 308, 323 and 504 IPC. Both the applicants and the State jointly submitted that a compromise had been reached between the parties and that the trial court had verified the compromise by orders dated 25 June 2024 and 26 November 2024. The learned Additional Government Advocate conceded the existence of the verified compromise. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that the High Court’s inherent powers may be exercised to achieve real and substantial justice, the court held that the dispute was essentially private, had no wider social impact, and therefore the criminal proceedings could be terminated. Consequently, the application was allowed and the order of 9 July 2024 along with the entire criminal proceedings were quashed. It was also noted that one of the accused, Virendra, had died after the compromise was verified.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings when the parties have reached a verified compromise.
Whether offences under Sections 308, 323 and 504 IPC, including a non‑compoundable offence, can be extinguished by compromise and thus warrant quashing of the case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 504

Subjects

Section 482 CrPC
inherent jurisdiction
compromise
quash criminal proceedings
private dispute
compoundable offences
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26296 of 2024

Mahendra And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hare Ram Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Varun Shankar Dwivedi

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

1. Heard Mr. Hare Ram Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants,
learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Mr. Varun Shankar Dwivedi, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed for
quashing the order dated 9.7.2024 as well as entire proceedings of
Sessions Case No. 1771 of 2021 (State Vs. Virendra and others), arising
out of Case Crime No. 224 of 2019, under Sections 308, 323, 504 IPC,
Police Station Belghat, District Gorakhpur, pending in the Court of
learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as opposite party No.2
jointly submitted that vide order dated 26.11.2024, a direction was given
to the court concerned to verify the factum of compromise executed by
the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the court concerned had
verified the contents of compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into
compromise, which has duly been verified by the court concerned vide
order dated 25.06.2024, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure
No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 22.3.2026.

5. Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected
between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the court
A482 No. 26296 of 2024
2

below.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and
order dated 9.7.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.
1771 of 2021 (State Vs. Virendra and others), arising out of Case Crime
No. 224 of 2019, under Sections 308, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station
Belghat, District Gorakhpur, pending in the Court of learned Sessions
Judge, Gorakhpur. pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No.5,
Agra, are hereby quashed.

9. It is stated on behalf of applicants that after verification of compromise
before the learned Trial Court, applicant No.3- Virendra has died.

(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
April 20, 2026
SFH

Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHIM HUSAIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…