BACHCHU SINGH AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28763 of 2026

Bachchu Singh And 7 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)               :    Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :    G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
18.09.2013 and cognizance/summoning order dated 21.01.2014 along with
entire proceedings of Case No.351 of 2014 (State Vs. Bachchu Singh and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.567-A of 2013, under Sections 147,
452, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra, pending in the
court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.12, Agra, 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 25.08.2026 which has been appended
with present application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by
learned AGA.

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
and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
                                                                                              NA528 No. 28763 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                    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 18.09.2013 and cognizance/summoning order dated
                                    21.01.2014 along with entire proceedings of Case No.351 of 2014 (State Vs.
                                    Bachchu Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.567-A of 2013,
                                    under Sections 147, 452, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Etmaddaula, District
                                    Agra, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
                                    Court No.12, Agra, are hereby quashed.

                                    9. 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