Allahabad High Court
RAMDEEN KEWAT @ RAMAADHEENversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground of a valid compromise between the parties.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No.85 of 2008) arising from offences under Sections 326, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, on the ground that the parties had reached a compromise dated 16‑07‑2025, which was verified by the magistrate on 01‑09‑2026. Both parties admitted the settlement and argued that continuation of the trial would be futile and contrary to the interests of justice. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692, which permit quashing of non‑compoundable criminal proceedings where a genuine settlement exists. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the entire proceedings and allowed the application. The order also warned the opposite party that a recall application could be filed if they felt aggrieved.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 326, 323, 504 and 506 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedents permit such quashing in the interest of justice despite the offences not being compoundable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 326, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- IPC Sections 326, 323, 504, 506
- settlement
- justice
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22290 of 2026
Ramdeen Kewat @ Ramaadheen
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sapan Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Shukla
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 entire proceedings
of Case No.85 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.30 of 2008, under
Sections 326, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Bellipar, District Gorakhpur,
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3,
Gorakhpur, on the basis of compromise dated 16.07.2025 made between
the parties.
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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3, Gorakhpur on
dated 01.09.2026, which has been appended with supplementary affidavit
preferred on behalf of applicant, 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.
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
NA528 No. 22290 of 2026
2
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, the entire proceedings of Case No.85 of 2008, arising out of Case
Crime No.30 of 2008, under Sections 326, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.
Bellipar, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-3, Gorakhpur, 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
Checking your session…