Allahabad High Court

VIVEK SAGAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court held that even for non‑compoundable offences, a criminal proceeding may be quashed if the parties have settled the dispute and continuation of the trial would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S. seeking to quash the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings (Case No. 545 of 2025) arising from Crime No. 335 of 2025, which involved offences under sections 333, 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and acknowledged by both sides. The court considered Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre) that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences when a genuine settlement exists to avoid futility of trial. Relying on these authorities and the fact of settlement, the High Court quashed the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and all proceedings. Consequently, the application was allowed and the criminal case was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the ground of an amicable compromise between the offender and the victim.
Whether Section 528 of the B.N.S. permits the High Court to quash the charge‑sheet and proceedings in such circumstances.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 333, 351(2), 352, 528

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528
High Court
settlement
justice

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22601 of 2026

Vivek Sagar And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar, Vinod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sejal Gupta, G.A., Kuldeep Kumar
Gupta

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
12.09.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 10.03.2026 and the
entire proceedings of Case No.545 of 2025, (State vs. Vivek Sagar and
others) arising out of Case Crime No.335 of 2025, under sections
333,115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, P.S. Swar, District Rampur, pending in
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur on dated
29.08.2026, 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
said judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
NA528 No. 22601 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, charge-sheet dated 12.09.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated
10.03.2026 and the entire proceedings of Case No.545 of 2025, (State vs.
Vivek Sagar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.335 of 2025, under
sections 333,115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, P.S. Swar, District Rampur,
pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, 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 28, 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…