Allahabad High Court
SARANSH MANAUT AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 506 IPC as the parties had reached an amicable settlement, making continuation of the case futile.
Summary
The applicants, Saransh Manaut and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406 and 506 of the IPC. The dispute between the parties had been amicably settled, a fact verified by the Judicial Magistrate on 3 August 2026 and admitted by both sides. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine compromise 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 chargesheet dated 17 January 2025 and the cognizance order dated 5 May 2026 were quashed, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 406 and 506 IPC 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 quash such proceedings despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceeding
- non-compoundable offence
- Section 528 CrPC
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal breach of trust
- criminal intimidation
- inherent powers
- settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28518 of 2026
Saransh Manaut And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dheeraj Kumar Pandey, Rakesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arpit Mishra, G.A., Somesh Kumar
Srivastava
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Arpit
Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
17.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 05.05.2026 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case bearing CNR
No.UPKN040835982026 of 2025 (State Vs. Saransh Manaut and Another),
arising out of Case Crime No.318 of 2022, under Sections 406, 506 IPC,
P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate-IV, Kanpur Nagar, 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 03.08.2026 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. 28518 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, chargesheet dated 17.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated
05.05.2026 along with entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case bearing
CNR No.UPKN040835982026 of 2025 (State Vs. Saransh Manaut and
Another), arising out of Case Crime No.318 of 2022, under Sections 406,
506 IPC, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Kanpur Nagar, 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…