Allahabad High Court

SUSHIL CHAUDHARY @ SURENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceeding under Section 528 CrPC, holding that the compromise between the parties justified dismissal despite the offences being non‑compoundable.

Summary

The applicant, Sushil Chaudhary, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a criminal proceeding (Criminal Case No.3600323 of 2006) pending before the Small Cause Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, arising from offences under Sections 386 and 506 IPC. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was verified by the Small Cause Judge on 02.09.2026. Both parties consented that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose and would be contrary to the interests of justice. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre) that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists, the High Court held that the proceeding should be dismissed. Consequently, the application was allowed and the criminal proceeding was quashed.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences (IPC 386, 506) can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash such proceedings in the interest of justice.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 386, 506

Subjects

quash criminal proceeding
compromise
non‑compoundable offence
Section 528 CrPC
IPC 386
IPC 506
settlement
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21376 of 2026

Sushil Chaudhary @ Surendra Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Maneesh Tiwari, Pawan Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Harish Chandra

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

1. On the request of learned counsel for applicant, this matter is being
taken up out of turn considering the urgency. Heard learned counsel for
the parties.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the impugned order
dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure-1) and cognizance order dated 14.02.2006
(Annexure-20 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad
and entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.3600323 of 2006 (State Vs.
Sushil Chaudhary) arising out of Case Crime No.1164 of 2005, under
Sections 386, 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad, pending
before learned Small Cause Judge/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Moradabad on the basis of compromise dated 17.12.2024. .

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been
verified by learned Small Cause Judge/ Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Moradabad on dated 02.09.2026, which has been appended
with order sheet to this application, this fact has also been ascertained and
seconded by both the parties/learned counsel for applicant.

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.
NA528 No. 21376 of 2026
2

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
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, impugned order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure-1) and cognizance
order dated 14.02.2006 (Annexure-20 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Moradabad and entire proceeding of Criminal Case
No.3600323 of 2006 (State Vs. Sushil Chaudhary) arising out of Case
Crime No.1164 of 2005, under Sections 386, 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines,
District Moradabad, pending before learned Small Cause Judge/
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, 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 29, 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…