Allahabad High Court
RAHMAT ALI AND 11 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that the criminal proceedings were quashed as the parties had reached a genuine compromise, making continuation of the case futile.
Summary
The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge-sheet dated 20‑10‑2015, the cognizance order dated 25‑05‑2016, and the entire criminal proceedings (Case No.1267 of 2016) for offences under Sections 147, 109, 295 and 504 IPC. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, a compromise being recorded and verified by the Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30‑04‑2025, a fact also acknowledged by the State's counsel. Both sides jointly submitted that there would be no prejudice in terminating the criminal action and that continuation would be futile. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre (1988), which permit quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the charge‑sheet and the proceedings and allowed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 147, 109, 295 and 504 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the parties.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 147, 295, 504
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceedings
- compromise settlement
- non‑compoundable offences
- IPC Sections 147, 109, 295, 504
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35733 of 2016
Rahmat Ali And 11 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawan Kumar, Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated
20.10.2015, cognizance/summoning order dated 25.05.2016 and the entire
proceedings of Case No.1267 of 2016 (State vs. Rahmat Ali and others)
under Sections 147, 109, 295, 504 IPC, P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified
by learned Civil Judge (C.D.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Maharajganj on dated 30.04.2025, which has been appended in the file, this
fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned A.G.A.
4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and
jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the
interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the
compromise.
5. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 58 of the said
judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has
been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its
opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility
and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
A482 No. 35733 of 2016
2
an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor.
6. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692], Hon'ble the Apex Court has
also observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial,
family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature"
and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of
disputes between the parties.
7. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case,
charge-sheet dated 20.10.2015, cognizance/summoning order dated
25.05.2016 and the entire proceedings of Case No.1267 of 2016 (State vs.
Rahmat Ali and others) under Sections 147, 109, 295, 504 IPC, P.S.
Nichlaul, District Majarajganj, are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting
parties. If at all, informant/opposite party no.2 feels that he has been duped
or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the
reasons for filing the said application.
April 8, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…