Allahabad High Court

SHRIPAL AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The conviction order dated 30‑08‑2024 is quashed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash a conviction dated 30‑08‑2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhibramau, in a case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The applicants had appealed the conviction before the Sessions Court, but while the appeal was pending the parties entered into a compromise, which was verified by the Sessions Judge on 31‑08‑2026. Both sides admitted the settlement and argued that the conviction order should be set aside in view of the compromise. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramawatar v. State of M.P., which allows post‑conviction relief by a superior court when a private, non‑heinous offence is settled and an appeal is pending. Applying this principle, the High Court exercised its powers under Section 528 CrPC (and the inherent powers of Section 482) to quash the conviction order. The application was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction order can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties while an appeal is pending.
Whether the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC are private in nature and non‑heinous, permitting relief under the Supreme Court’s precedent.
The scope of the superior court’s inherent powers under Article 142 and Section 482 CrPC in post‑conviction matters.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

Criminal Procedure
Section 528 CrPC
Section 482 CrPC
Compromise settlement
Post‑conviction relief
Private offence
Quash conviction
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27585 of 2026

Shripal And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dheeraj Kumar Maurya, Kamlesh Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Narendra Kumar

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

1. Heard Sri Dheeraj Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for applicants and Sri
Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned
AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the judgment dated
30.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chhibramau, Kannauj in Criminal Case No.1764 of 2014 (State Vs.
Raghuvir Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.289 of 2014,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Saurikh, District Kannauj,
whereby appellants were convicted.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that
applicants were convicted in the said case and thereafter they preferred
criminal appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj but during pendency
of that criminal appeal, both the parties entered into a compromise and the
same has also been verified by learned Sessions Judge on dated 31.08.2026
which has been appended with present application, this fact has also been
ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and
as such, there would be no harm and error if the impugned conviction order
may be quashed in light of the compromise.

5. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramawatar Vs. State of
M.P., (2021) 10 SCR 499, has observed that even after a conviction is
finalized, criminal proceedings can be set aside on the basis of settlement
between the parties, if the offense is private in nature and non-heinous.
NA528 No. 27585 of 2026
2

Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in postconviction matters only
where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on
the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the
accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice
before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may
before the final Court, is sinequanon to involve the superior court's plenary
powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued
post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on
the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is
necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for
such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion
about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extra-
ordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollowhearted agreements between
the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine
settlement(s)."

6. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chhibramau, Kannauj in Criminal Case No.1764 of 2014 (State
Vs. Raghuvir Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.289 of 2014,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Saurikh, District Kannauj,
whereby appellants were convicted, are hereby quashed.

7. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

September 28, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…