Allahabad High Court
RAJVEER AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants, holding that the verified compromise and settlement justify dismissal even though the offences are non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking quash of Session Trial No. 88 of 2023, which involved offences under IPC sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 and 325. Earlier, the High Court had directed the parties to obtain a court‑verified compromise, which they did, and the verification report was filed. The State raised no objection to the compromise. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of criminal proceedings when a genuine settlement is reached, even for non‑compoundable offences, the Court held that continuation of the trial would be futile. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against the applicants and allowed the application. The judgment also indicated that the other opposite party could file a recall application if aggrieved.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 528 CrPC when the parties have reached a court‑verified compromise, despite the offences being non‑compoundable?
- Does the settlement of a dispute justify dismissal of pending criminal cases in the interest of justice?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash of proceedings
- compromise deed
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17104 of 2026
Rajveer And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Siddharth Niranjan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard 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 Session Trial no. 88 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime no. 31
of 2023 under Section 323, 324, 504, 506, 308, 325 IPC, PS- Sirsa Kalar,
District Jalaun along with charge sheet dated 28.3.2023, cognizance order
dated 18.4.2023.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that earlier, applicants
approached this Court by way of filing Application u/s 528 BNSS no. 918 of
2026 (Rajveer and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another) wherein vide order
dated 14.1.2026 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 14.1.2026 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 no. 2 has been verified by
learned court concerned and verification report dated 4.2.2026 has already
been received from learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai and the same is
appended as Annexure no. 6 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
learned counsel for applicants.
NA528 No. 17104 of 2026
2
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 Session Trial no. 88 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime no. 31
of 2023 under Section 323, 324, 504, 506, 308, 325 IPC, PS- Sirsa Kalar,
District Jalaun, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants herein.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
10. If at all, 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.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
May 5, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…