Allahabad High Court

OM NARAYAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 26 April 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court held that the criminal proceeding may be quashed in respect of the applicants as the dispute was settled and continuation of the case would be futile.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 20 of 2020 (Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC) on the ground that they had entered into a fresh compromise deed dated 9 April 2026, which was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The State did not oppose the compromise. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is settled and continuation would be futile, held that the proceeding should be dismissed in respect of the applicants. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the verification of the compromise deed by the magistrate suffices to justify quashing the proceeding.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506

Subjects

quash of criminal proceeding
Section 528 CrPC
compromise deed
non‑compoundable offences
settlement
High Court of Allahabad

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16983 of 2026

Om Narayan And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, Laxmi
Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, 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. 20 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime no.
710 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Ajitmal, District Auraiya
pending in court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C.,
Auraiya in pursuance of compromise dated 9.4.2026 and verification order
dated 9.4.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate/F.T.C., Auraiya.

3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that in pursuance to directions
issued by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in earlier Application u/s 482 no.
25751 of 2021 (Om Narayan and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and another),
parties concerned appeared before court concerned and filed fresh
compromise deed dated 9.4.2026 and the said compromise entered between
applicants and opposite party no. 2 has been verified by learned court
concerned and verification report dated 9.4.2026 issued by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C., Auraiya has already been
received and the same is appended as Annexure no. 7 to the instant
application wherein it is mentioned that compromise entered by both the
parties have been verified by learned court concerned.

4. Learned AGA for the State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of
NA528 No. 16983 of 2026
2

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. 20 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime no.
710 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Ajitmal, District Auraiya
are hereby quashed only in respect of applicants herein.

9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
April 27, 2026
Shaswat

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…