Allahabad High Court

LAKHAN SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 26 April 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that a genuine compromise between the parties warrants termination of the case even though the offences are non‑compoundable.

Summary

The applicants Lakhan Singh and three others filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and proceedings in a case involving offences under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 131, 351(2) and 352 of the IPC. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the compromise was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 22 April 2026. Both sides agreed that there was no injustice in terminating the criminal action. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre (1988), the High Court held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where continuation would be futile and justice demands settlement. Consequently, the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and all proceedings were quashed. The application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the settlement of a civil or family nature justifies termination of criminal prosecution.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 117(2), 131, 351(2), 352

Subjects

compromise
quash criminal proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528 CrPC
settlement
justice
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12104 of 2026

Lakhan Singh And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anupam Kumar Shukla, Shiv Sharan
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated
27.07.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated18.11.2025 and the entire
proceedings of Case No.51589 of 2025 (State Vs. Harendra Singh and
other) arising out of Case Crime No.359 of 2025, under Sections 115(2),
117(2), 131, 351(2), 352 of IPC, Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh,
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.4, Aligarh.

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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4,
Aligarh on dated 22.04.2026, which has been appended with ordersheet,
this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for
opposite parties.

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
NA528 No. 12104 of 2026
2

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 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 27.07.2025, cognizance/summoning order
dated18.11.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No.51589 of 2025
(State Vs. Harendra Singh and other) arising out of Case Crime No.359 of
2025, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 131, 351(2), 352 of IPC, Police
Station Tappal, District Aligarh, pending in the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Aligarh, 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/she has been
duped or betrayed, then in that event, he/she may file recall application
explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

April 27, 2026
Ashish/-

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…