Allahabad High Court
AVDESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that the compromise between the parties justified its dismissal.
Summary
The petitioner Avdesh Kumar filed a writ petition seeking quashment of an FIR dated 17 June 2026 under Sections 117(2) and 352 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the dispute was trivial and the parties had amicably resolved it through a compromise affidavit. The court examined the compromise affidavit filed by respondent No.4 and a verification report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, confirming its genuineness. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4, as well as the State, accepted the compromise and expressed no objection to quashing the FIR. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, the High Court held that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Can an FIR under Sections 117(2) and 352 of the IPC be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Is compromise permissible in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences under Indian law?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 117(2), 352
Subjects
- compromise
- quashment of FIR
- cognizable offence
- non‑compoundable offence
- criminal procedure
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15773 of 2026
Avdesh Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Singh, Raghuvansh Chandra,
Ram Jee Saxena
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rampyare Lal Srivastava
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today in Court, is
taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State, Sri
Rampyare Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and
perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of trivial
dispute, the impugned F.I.R was lodged against the petitioner, however
subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of the family and
society, parties have amicably and genuinely resolved all their disputes and
differences and now they do not have any grievance against each other.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next drawn the attention of the
Court to a compromise affidavit dated 23.6.2026 filed on behalf of
respondent No. 4, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. SCA-
1 to the short counter affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that this Court vide
order dated 3.8.2026 had referred the matter to the C.J.M., Hapur to verify
the genuineness of the aforesaid affidavit. Pursuant to the said order, the
parties appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, who after
recording the statement of the petitioner as well as first informant/injured,
submitted a report dated 13.8.2026 verifying the genuineness of the said
affidavit.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that in view of the
compromise made between the parties and in order to maintain cordial and
CRLP No. 15773 of 2026
2
harmonious relations between them, the impugned first information report
qua the petitioner be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has also appeared and has filed
short counter affidavit and has acknowledged the said compromise affidavit
being given by him. In para-8 of short counter affidavit filed on his behalf, it
has been candidly stated that respondent No. 4 has no objection, if the
impugned first information report is quashed.
8. Learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
9. This Court is not unmindful of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court
passed in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC
641 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (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 Hon'ble Apex Court in
the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
10. 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 present case.
11. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of impugned F.I.R. dated 17.6.2026,
arising out of Case Crime No. 321 of 2026, under Sections 117(2), 352 of
BNS, Police Station- Garhmukteshwar, District- Hapur, are hereby quashed.
12. The instant writ petition stands allowed.
September 29, 2026
KU
(Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…