Allahabad High Court
CHANDRA SHEKHAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC, holding that the parties' compromise justified dismissal even though the offences were non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Sessions Trial No.232 of 2017) relating to offences under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The parties had amicably settled the dispute and a compromise was verified by the trial court on 1 August 2026. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists, the High Court exercised its inherent powers to dismiss the case. The Court held that continuation of the proceedings would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the application was allowed and the criminal proceedings were entirely quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 CrPC to dismiss such proceedings despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- High Court
- IPC sections 308, 323, 504, 506
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27814 of 2026
Chandra Shekhar And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Nagendra Pratap Singh
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and
Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, 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.232 of 2017 (State Vs. Chandra Shekhar
and others), arising out of Case Crime No.204 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. 27814 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.232 of 2017 (State Vs.
Chandra Shekhar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.204 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…