Allahabad High Court
BALWANT AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that even for non‑compoundable offences, criminal proceedings may be quashed where there is an amicable settlement and no public interest is jeopardized.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the Sessions Trial No. 231 of 2017, which involved offences under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The applicants had already reached a compromise, which was verified by the trial court on 1 August 2026 and was acknowledged by the opposite party. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where an amicable settlement exists, the Court examined whether the public interest would be harmed by terminating the proceedings. It concluded that the settlement removed any justification for continuing the trial and that quashing would serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding was set aside and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under the IPC be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- IPC offences
- settlement
- inherent powers of court
- public interest
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27773 of 2026
Balwant And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nagendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for applicants and Sri
Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well
as learned AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash entire criminal
proceedings of Sessions Trial No.231 of 2017 (State Vs. Dhari and others),
arising out of Case Crime No.203 of 2015, under Sections 308, 323, 504,
506 IPC, P.S. Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, UPSEB, Gorakhpur, on the
basis of compromise.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified
by learned court concerned on dated 01.08.2026 which has been appended
with this petition, 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 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 54 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
NA528 No. 27773 of 2026
2
and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
an end and peace is restored; 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. In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC
37], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed hat 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. Relevant paragraph of the
said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"5. In light of the amicable settlement and the complainant's unequivocal
consent, as evidenced by the Interlocutory Application, this Court finds it
appropriate to allow the present M.A. While the offense under Section 326
IPC is non- compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, the exceptional circumstances of this case, including the
voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the exercise of this Court's
inherent powers to give effect to the compromise."
8. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.231 of 2017 (State Vs.
Dhari and others), arising out of Case Crime No.203 of 2015, under Sections
308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur, pending in
the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, UPSEB,
Gorakhpur, are hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
September 11, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…