Allahabad High Court
NADEEM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings as the parties had amicably settled the dispute despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 2497 of 2026) arising from offences under Sections 115(2), 110, 352 and 351(3) of the IPC. Both parties admitted that a compromise had been reached and that the settlement was verified by the District and Session Judge on 27 July 2026. The learned counsel for the respondents concurred that there was no prejudice to the State and that continuing the trial would be futile. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre (1988), which permit quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists. Accordingly, the Court quashed the proceedings and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim
- Whether Section 528 CrPC empowers the High Court to dismiss such proceedings in the interest of justice
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 110, 115(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash of proceedings
- compromise settlement
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- High Court judgment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25521 of 2026
Nadeem And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ifra Fatima
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
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.2497 of 2026 (State Vs. Nadeem and others), under Sections
115(2), 110, 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Khalapar, District Muzaffar Nagar,
arising out of Case Crime No.217 of 2025, pending in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Muzaffar Nagar.
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 District and Session Judge, District Muzaffar Nagar
on 27.07.2026, which has been appended with ordersheet 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
having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the
NA528 No. 25521 of 2026
2
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, Case No.2497 of 2026 (State Vs. Nadeem and others), under
Sections 115(2), 110, 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Khalapar, District Muzaffar
Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No.217 of 2025, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Muzaffar Nagar, 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 11, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…