Allahabad High Court

SUBHASH RAJBHARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 8 April 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court held that the compromise is permissible despite the nature of the offences and quashed the Special Judge's order.

Summary

The applicant, Subhash Rajbhar, filed a Section 528 BNSS application seeking to set aside a Special Judge's order dated 29‑03‑2025 in a case involving offences under IPC sections 363, 366, 376 and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4. The applicant and the second opposite party (the victim) had reached an out‑of‑court compromise, which was verified by the trial court on 04‑11‑2025. Both parties, including the State’s A.G. (AGA), consented to withdraw the prosecution, arguing that continuation would serve no useful purpose. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents permitting compromise even in cognizable and non‑compoundable offences, held that the compromise was permissible. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and allowed the Section 528 application.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise is permissible in offences punishable under IPC sections 363, 366, 376 and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4, which are cognizable and non‑compoundable.
Whether the High Court can quash the Special Judge's order and terminate the criminal proceedings on the basis of an out‑of‑court settlement.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 376
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

compromise
non‑compoundable offences
POCSO Act
Section 528 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
settlement
special judge

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22200 of 2025

Subhash Rajbhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Tyagi, G.A.

Court No. - 81
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2-informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to set aside the
impugned order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the court of learned Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 25, Kanpur Nagar in Special Session Trial
No. 34 of 2016 (State Vs. Subhash Rajbhar), arising out of Case Crime No.
03 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police
Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite
party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant
approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this 528 BNSS application with
prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between
the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 25.09.2025 directed the
parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and
compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 04.11.2025 verified the
parties as well as compromise application. He further submitted that
applicant and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite
party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicant. He
further submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled their
dispute through compromise and, as such, opposite party no.2 does not wish
to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready
to withdraw the prosecution of the applicant and in view of the compromise,
no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the
NA528 No. 22200 of 2025
2

correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or
the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that
opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case
are quashed.

5. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out
of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs.
State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs.
State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012)
10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be
made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-
compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given
by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013
(83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein
above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by
prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

8. Accordingly, impugned order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the court of
learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 25, Kanpur Nagar in Special
Session Trial No. 34 of 2016 (State Vs. Subhash Rajbhar), arising out of
Case Crime No. 03 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4
POCSO Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, are
hereby quashed.

9. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
April 9, 2026
Rmk.

Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…