Allahabad High Court

SHIVNEET SINGH ALIAS SUMIT AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court held that, notwithstanding the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, the proceedings were quashed because the parties had settled and continuation would be futile, in line with Section 528 CrPC and established Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 19658 of 2025) relating to offences under Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC. Both parties had reached an amicable settlement, which was verified by the Judicial Magistrate on 22‑09‑2026, and the opposite side consented to the quashal. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre, H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka) that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where continuation would be futile and justice demands an end to the dispute. Relying on these authorities and the confirmed compromise, the Court held that the proceedings could be dismissed. Consequently, the application was allowed and the entire criminal proceeding was quashed.

Issues considered

Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences (420, 504, 506 IPC) be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim under Section 528 CrPC?
Does the principle of futility and the interest of justice permit the High Court to quash such proceedings despite the offences being non‑compoundable?
Are the cited Supreme Court decisions applicable to justify quashing in the present case?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 504, 506

Subjects

compromise
quash criminal proceeding
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528 CrPC
settlement
futility of prosecution
Indian Penal Code
judicial discretion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27427 of 2026

Shivneet Singh Alias Sumit And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Shukla, Ghan Shyam
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., R.B. Singh

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.

3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
Case No.19658 of 2025 (State vs. Shivneet Singh @ Sumit and Another)
arising out of Case Crime No.336 of 2023, under sections 420, 504, 506 IPC,
P.S. Rasoolabad, District- Kanpur Dehat, pending before learned court of
Judicial Magistrate, Pratham, Kanpur Dehat, including charge-sheet dated
03.06.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.06.2025.

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 Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat 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. 27427 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 Case No.19658 of 2025 (State vs. Shivneet
Singh @ Sumit and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.336 of 2023,
under sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Rasoolabad, District- Kanpur Dehat,
pending before learned court of Judicial Magistrate, Pratham, Kanpur Dehat,
including charge-sheet dated 03.06.2024 and cognizance/summoning order
dated 18.06.2025, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…