Allahabad High Court
DHARMENDRA AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that a verified compromise between the parties justifies dismissal of the case even though the offences are non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 7388 of 2025, which involved non‑compoundable offences under Sections 115(2), 131, 333 and 351(2) of the IPC. Earlier, the High Court had directed the parties to obtain a court‑verified compromise, which was subsequently filed and verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Rampur. The State did not object to the compromise. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of proceedings when the dispute is settled, even for non‑compoundable offences, the Court held that continuation of the criminal case would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the entire proceeding was quashed with respect to the applicants, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC when the parties have reached a court‑verified compromise.
- Whether the verification report of the compromise deed suffices to justify quashing the case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 131, 333, 351(2)
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- court‑verified compromise
- settlement of dispute
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16674 of 2026
Dharmendra And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bindeshwari Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Bindeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for applicants and learned
AGA for the State.
2. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash the entire
proceeding of Criminal Case no. 7388 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no.
268 of 2025 under Section 115(2), 131, 333, 351(2) BNS, PS- Tanda,
District Rampur as well as set aside the cognizance order dated 9.9.2025
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and charge sheet dated
8.6.2025.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that earlier, applicants
approached this Court by way of filing Application u/s 528 BNSS no. 47806
of 2025 (Dharmendra and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) wherein
vide order dated 13.1.2026 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
applicants were directed to appear before learned court concerned and get
the compromise entered between them verified by the said court. In
compliance of order dated 13.1.2026 passed by this Court, parties concerned
appeared before court concerned and filed fresh compromise deed and the
said compromise entered between applicants and opposite party nos. 2 and 3
has been verified by learned court concerned and verification report dated
2.2.2026 has already been received from learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Rampur and the same is appended as Annexure no. 9 to the instant
application wherein it is mentioned that compromise entered by both the
parties have been verified by learned court concerned.
NA528 No. 16674 of 2026
2
4. Learned AGA for the State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of
learned counsel for applicants.
5. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and it has been submitted that there would be no harm and error
and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed
in light of the verification report.
6. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble 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 an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the
ultimate guiding factor.
7. 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.
8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire
proceeding of Criminal Case no. 7388 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no.
268 of 2025 under Section 115(2), 131, 333, 351(2) BNS, PS- Tanda,
District Rampur, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants herein.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
10. If at all, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 feels that they have been duped or
betrayed, then in that event, they may file recall application explaining the
reasons for filing the said application.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
April 23, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…