Allahabad High Court
SOMLATA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the chargesheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding, holding that the confirmed compromise justified termination of the case despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Summary
An application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by Somlata and three others seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 02‑06‑2019 and the related criminal proceedings (Case No. 3394 of 2019) involving offences under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 506. The applicants claimed that a compromise had been reached and was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15‑04‑2026, a fact also admitted by the opposite party. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents allowing quash of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists, notably Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre. Relying on the principle that continuation of the case would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice, the court held that the criminal proceedings should be terminated. Accordingly, the chargesheet, cognizance order and the entire proceeding were quashed and the application was allowed. The order further permitted any aggrieved party to file a recall application.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties
- Whether Section 528 CrPC permits the High Court to quash a chargesheet and cognizance order when a settlement is confirmed
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- high court
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18737 of 2026
Somlata And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Mishra, Avesh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
02.06.2019 and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.07.2019 along
with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3394 of 2019 (State of U.P.
Vs. Somlata and others) arising out of Case Crime No.193 of 2019, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 506 IPC, Police Station Dhampur,
District Bijnor, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bijnor on the basis of compromise.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been
verified by learned court concerned on dated 15.04.2026 which has been
appended with this petition, this fact has also been ascertained and
seconded by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties
and as such, there would be no harm and error if 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 54 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
NA528 No. 18737 of 2026
2
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 restored; 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, chargesheet dated 02.06.2019 and cognizance/summoning order
dated 18.07.2019 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3394
of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Somlata and others) arising out of Case Crime
No.193 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 506 IPC,
Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor, pending in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, 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, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or
betrayed, then in that event, he may seek recall of this order by way of
filing recall application explaining the reasons.
May 6, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…