Allahabad High Court
SHIVBABU SHARMA @ SHIVBABU SEN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The Court held that, having verified the compromise, the criminal proceedings under Sections 323 and 506 IPC may be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the charge‑sheet, summons and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 859 of 2023, which arose from a complaint under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. A compromise between the parties had been reached and subsequently verified by the Judicial Magistrate’s Court as directed by a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court. Both the State and the opposite party consented to the quashing. Relying on a series of Supreme Court judgments that permit compromise even in certain cognizable, non‑compoundable offences, the Court held that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted and the criminal proceedings quashed in cases involving offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, which are cognizable and non‑compoundable.
- Whether the verification of the compromise by the trial court satisfies the requirements of Section 528 CrPC for quashing proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 506
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- Compromise
- Quash proceedings
- Non‑compoundable offence
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Supreme Court precedent
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2790 of 2026
Shivbabu Sharma @ Shivbabu Sen And 3
Others .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Shobh Nath
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sunil Kumar
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State as well as perused the entire material available on
record.
2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the
prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 25th July, 2022,
cognizance/summoning order dated 18th May, 2023 as well as the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 859 of 2023 (State Vs.
Shivbabu Sharma & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0065 of
2022 under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Baharia,
District-Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.2, Allahabad on the basis of compromised so arrived at between
the parties.
3. While entertaining the present criminal application, a Coordinate
Bench of this Court passed the order dated 17th February, 2026 as
well as the order of this Court dated 8th September, 2026 directing
the applicants to file the compromise so entered into between the
parties before the trial court for its verification and the trial court was
inturn directed to verify the same.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the trial court vide order dated
19th September, 2026 has verified the compromise so arrived at
between the parties, a copy of which has been brought on record
along with the supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today which is
taken on record.
NA528 No. 2790 of 2026
2
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the
compromised so arrived at between the parties and the same has
also been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the
aforesaid criminal case be may be quashed by this Court.
6. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case
are quashed.
7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex
Court:
(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another;
(2003)4 SCC 675,
(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9
SCC 677,
(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC
466,
(vi).Dimpey Gujral W/o Vivek Gujral & Others Vs. Union Territory
Thru. Administrator Chandigarh & Others; (2013) 11 SCC 497,
(vii). H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka; 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 38 , and
(viii). Naushey Ali & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another;
(2025) 4 SCC 78.
8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held
that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of
certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may
also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and
Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which
the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been
explained in detail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted
herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the
parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose
NA528 No. 2790 of 2026
3
shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above
mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their
dispute.
10. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 859 of
2023 (State Vs. Shivbabu Sharma & Others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 0065 of 2022 under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C., Police
Station-Baharia, District-Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad are hereby quashed.
11. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
September 30, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…