Allahabad High Court
ABHAY KUMAR RAI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the settlement between the parties rendered continuation of the non‑compoundable offences futile and contrary to the ends of justice.
Summary
The applicants filed a Section 528 CrPC application seeking to quash Sessions Trial No.286 of 2017 (State vs. Virendra Rai) involving offences under IPC sections 323, 325, 308, 504 and 506. The parties had reached an amicable settlement, which was verified by the Additional Sessions Judge on 22‑09‑2026 and was acknowledged by both sides. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable criminal proceedings where a genuine compromise exists and continuation would be futile, the High Court held that the proceedings should be set aside. Consequently, the entire criminal case was quashed and the application was allowed. The order also warned that any aggrieved party may file a recall application.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise/settlement between the accused and the victim under Section 528 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 325, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- high court
- Indian Penal Code
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26151 of 2026
Abhay Kumar Rai And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aman Kumar Rai, Ashok Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pankaj Kumar Rai
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. On the request of learned counsel for applicants, this matter is being taken
up out of turn considering the urgency.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Verification report preferred at the
behest of applicants in Court is taken on record.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
Sessions Trial No.286 of 2017 (State vs. Virendra Rai and Others) arising
out of Case Crime No.403 of 2000, under sections 323, 325, 308, 504, 506
IPC, P.S. Mohammadabad, District- Ghazipur, pending before learned court
of Special Judge, E.C. Act, Ghazipur, including charge-sheet dated
04.11.2000.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified
by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Ghazipur on
dated 22.09.2026, which has been appended with the records of instant
application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned
counsel for opposite parties.
5. 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.
6. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
NA528 No. 26151 of 2026
2
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.
7. 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.
8. In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC
37], Hon'ble the 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.
9. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.286 of 2017 (State vs.
Virendra Rai and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.403 of 2000, under
sections 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Mohammadabad, District-
Ghazipur, pending before learned court of Special Judge, E.C. Act,
Ghazipur, including charge-sheet dated 04.11.2000, are hereby quashed, in
respect of applicant(s) herein.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
11. 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
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…