Allahabad High Court

BHAGWANDEEN AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the charge‑sheet and all proceedings, holding that the confirmed compromise justified termination of the criminal action.

Summary

The applicants, Bhagwandeen and four others, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and proceedings in a criminal case (Case No. 19290 of 2025) involving offences under sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 351(2) and 324(2) of the BNS P.S. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the compromise was verified by the Additional Civil Judge and acknowledged by both sides. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where continuation of prosecution would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice, the High Court examined whether the settlement justified dismissal of the criminal action. The Court held that, given the confirmed compromise and the principle of securing justice, the criminal proceedings should be terminated. Consequently, the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and all related proceedings were quashed, and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the victim under Section 528 CrPC.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash the charge‑sheet and proceedings in the present case.

Legislation cited

BNS P.S. — s. 115(2), 191(2), 324(2), 333, 351(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528 CrPC
settlement
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20949 of 2026

Bhagwandeen And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated
10.03.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 04.04.2024 and the entire
proceedings of Case No.19290 of 2025, (State vs. Bhagwandeen and
others) arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2025, under sections 191(2),
333, 115(2), 351(2) and 324(2) of BNS P.S. Bilhaur, District Kanpur
Nagar, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur
Dehat.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been
verified by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2/
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, on dated 14.08.2026, which has
been appended with order sheet to this application, this fact has also been
ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite parties.

4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties
and jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be
in the interest of justice that 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 58 of the
NA528 No. 20949 of 2026
2

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.

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, charge-sheet dated 10.03.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated
04.04.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No.19290 of 2025, (State
vs. Bhagwandeen and others) arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2025,
under sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 351(2) and 324(2) of BNS P.S.
Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, 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, informant/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.

September 8, 2026
Ashish/-

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…