Allahabad High Court

SANDEEP MITTAL AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceeding, holding that a compromise between the parties justifies dismissal even where the offence is non‑compoundable.

Summary

The applicants Sandeep Mittal and four others sought to quash a criminal proceeding (Case Crime No. 0421 of 2025) initiated under Section 316(2) BNS of the Uttar Pradesh code. They filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code, submitting a verified compromise report indicating that the dispute had been amicably settled. The opposite parties raised no objection to the compromise. 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 continuation of proceedings in a non‑compoundable offence where the parties have settled would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceeding with respect to the applicants and allowed the application.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding for an offence under Section 316(2) BNS, which is non‑compoundable, can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 of the CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Uttar Pradesh Criminal Procedure Code — s. 316(2)

Subjects

compromise
quash criminal proceeding
non-compoundable offence
Section 528 CrPC
settlement
justice
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25644 of 2026

Sandeep Mittal And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kashif Zaidi, Rahul Sahai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Harish Kumar, Umesh
Chandra Shukla

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Affidavit to bring compromise on record, preferred on behalf
of applicants is taken on record.

2. This matter is being taken up out of turn from the category
of cases which have been mentioned in the morning on account
of urgency. Heard learned counsel for parties.

3. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash
the summoning order dated 11.5.2026 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Case Crime no. 0421 of 2025 (State
vs. Sandeep Mittal and others), under sections 316(2) BNS, PS-
Hari Parwat, District Agra in Final Report no. 734 of 2026.

4. In compliance of earlier order passed by this Court,
compromise verification report has already been received from
learned court concerned and the same has been preferred today by
learned counsel for applicants by way of affidavit which is taken
on record, wherein it is mentioned that compromise has been
verified in presence of both the parties.

5. Learned counsel for opposite parties showed no objection to
aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicants.

6. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have
NA528 No. 25644 of 2026
2

amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been
confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties and it
has been submitted that there would be no harm and error and it
would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be
quashed in light of the compromise.

7. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble 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 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.

8. 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.

9. In case of H.N.Pandakumar vs. State of Karnataka [2025
INSC 37], Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that 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.

10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the
entire proceeding of Case Crime no. 0421 of 2025 (State vs.
Sandeep Mittal and others), under sections 316(2) BNS, PS- Hari
Parwat, District Agra, are hereby quashed, only in respect of
applicants herein.
NA528 No. 25644 of 2026
3

10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

11. If at all, 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 21, 2026
Shaswat

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…