Allahabad High Court
YOGESH AND 9 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the charge‑sheets and the entire criminal proceeding on account of the verified compromise between the parties.
Summary
The applicants, Yogesh and nine others, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheets and the entire criminal trial (Sessions Trial No. 1221 of 2021) relating to offences under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506, 352 and 304 IPC. The applicants asserted that a full compromise had been reached and was verified by the Additional District Judge on 14‑08‑2026. The learned counsel for the State concurred that the dispute was settled. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre, and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka) the High Court held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where a genuine settlement exists and continuation of proceedings would be futile. Consequently, the charge‑sheets, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding were quashed, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 CrPC to dismiss the case despite the nature of the offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 304, 323, 352, 452, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- criminal proceedings
- settlement
- inherent powers
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22454 of 2026
Yogesh And 9 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avadh Raj Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Avadh Raj Sharma, learned counsel for applicants and learned
AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheets dated
28.09.2019 and 14.11.2019 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated
01.10.2019 along with entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.1221
of 2021 (State Vs. Yogesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.249 of
2019, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506, 352, 304 IPC, P.S. Iglas, District
Aligarh, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge/F.T.C.,
Court No.2, Aligarh, 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 14.08.2026 which has been appended
with this application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by
learned AGA.
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 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
NA528 No. 22454 of 2026
2
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. In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC
37], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed hat if the offence is non-
compoundable which is having no serious impact on society then there
would be no harm and error if the proceedings may be quashed in light of
the compromise entered into between the parties. Relevant paragraph of the
said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"5. In light of the amicable settlement and the complainant's unequivocal
consent, as evidenced by the Interlocutory Application, this Court finds it
appropriate to allow the present M.A. While the offense under Section 326
IPC is non- compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, the exceptional circumstances of this case, including the
voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the exercise of this Court's
inherent powers to give effect to the compromise."
8. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, chargesheets dated 28.09.2019 and 14.11.2019 as well as
cognizance/summoning order dated 01.10.2019 along with entire criminal
proceedings of Sessions Trial No.1221 of 2021 (State Vs. Yogesh and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.249 of 2019, under Sections 147, 452,
323, 506, 352, 304 IPC, P.S. Iglas, District Aligarh, pending in the court of
learned Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Court No.2, Aligarh, are hereby
quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
September 11, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…