Allahabad High Court

SHASHANK @ SHASHANK PURI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings as the parties had fully settled the dispute, making conviction remote and continuation of the case oppressive.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 7638/2025, which involved offences under Sections 323, 325 and 506 of the IPC arising from a personal dispute. The parties had entered into a compromise deed dated 30.03.2026, which was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.05.2026, and the opposite party expressed no intention to pursue the matter further. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of criminal proceedings where a full settlement renders conviction remote and the case is of a civil flavour, the High Court examined whether the compromise justified dismissal of the case. The Court held that the dispute was purely personal, the compromise was complete, and continuing the prosecution would cause oppression and injustice. Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 CrPC and quashed the entire criminal proceeding.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 528 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise settlement.
Whether offences under IPC Sections 323, 325 and 506 can be quashed despite being non‑compoundable when the dispute is fully settled.
Whether the settlement makes the possibility of conviction remote and bleak, justifying quash.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 325, 506

Subjects

quash
compromise settlement
Section 528 CrPC
non‑compoundable offences
inherent jurisdiction
civil flavour dispute
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16066 of 2026

Shashank @ Shashank Puri And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bheshaj Puri
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 80
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Yadav holding brief of Mr. Bheshaj Puri, learned
counsel for the applicants and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicants with a prayer to quash the Charge Sheet No.396 of 2025 dated
30.11.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2025 as well as
entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 7638/2025 (State Vs. Shashank and
others) under Sections 323, 325, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Bilsi, District -Budaun,
arising out of Case Crime No.482 of 2022, under Sections 323, 325, 506
I.P.C., P.S-Bilsi, District-Budaun pending in the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-2, Budaun on the basis of compromise deed
dated 30.03.2026.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the parties appeared
before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise. The said
compromise has been duly verified by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.2, Budaun, on 12.05.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises
out of personal discord between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2.
It is also argued that the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the
matter pending in the Court concerned and, therefore, the impugned
proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties
and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.
NA528 No. 16066 of 2026
2

5. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for both the parties.

6 The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement
arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
Constitutional Bench Judgment in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
Another, (2012)10 SCC 303, has held that "But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because
of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with
the victim."

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujara and another,
(2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the criminal
proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that "even in the
non compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be
quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material
cases."

8. Both the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending
amongst them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the law
as cited above, the present case is a good case for exercise of power by the
Court to quash summoning order as well as entire proceedings.

9. The dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature that has been
mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no
useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any
longer.

10. The present application for quashing filed under Section 528 BNSS
NA528 No. 16066 of 2026
3

comes within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019 dated
02.09.2025.

11. In view of the above, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.
7638/2025 (State Vs. Shashank and others) under Sections 323, 325, 506
I.P.C., P.S.-Bilsi, District -Budaun, arising out of Case Crime No.482 of
2022, under Sections 323, 325, 506 I.P.C., P.S-Bilsi, District-Budaun
pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-2,
Budaun, are hereby quashed.

12. The present application is, accordingly, allowed.

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
September 8, 2026
Aditya Tripathi

Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…