Allahabad High Court

TEJ NARAYANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court held that even for non‑compoundable offences, a criminal proceeding may be quashed under Section 528 CrPC when the parties have amicably settled the dispute and continuation of the trial would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice.

Summary

The applicant, Tej Narayan, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and proceedings in a case involving offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Both parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was verified by the Judicial Magistrate on 11‑08‑2026. The court noted Supreme Court precedents allowing quash of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists and the continuation of trial would be futile. Relying on these authorities, the High Court held that the interests of justice warranted termination of the criminal process. Consequently, the charge‑sheet, cognizance order, and all related proceedings were quashed and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences (IPC 420, 406) can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the settlement of the dispute justifies termination of the trial in the interest of justice.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420

Subjects

quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528 CrPC
compromise settlement
non‑compoundable offences
IPC 420
IPC 406
justice
settlement of disputes

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28915 of 2026

Tej Narayan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava, Jitendra Singh,
Rakesh Kumar Gangwar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated
26.04.2011, cognizance/summoning order dated 27.07.2011 and the
entire proceedings of Case No.1486 of 2024 (State vs. Tej Narayan)
arising out of Case Crime No.212 of 2011, under sections 420, 406 IPC,
P.S. Meerganj, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate-1, Bareilly.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been
verified by learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Bareilly on dated 11.08.2026,
which has been appended with ordersheet to this application, this fact has
also been ascertained and seconded by both the parties/learned counsel
for applicant.

4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties
and jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be
in the interest of justice that 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 58 of the
said judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
NA528 No. 28915 of 2026
2

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 an end and peace is resorted; 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. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, charge-sheet dated 26.04.2011, cognizance/summoning order dated
27.07.2011 and the entire proceedings of Case No.1486 of 2024 (State
vs. Tej Narayan) arising out of Case Crime No.212 of 2011, under
sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Meerganj, District Bareilly, pending in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting
parties. If at all, informant/opposite party no.2 feels that he/she has been
duped or betrayed, then in that event, he/she may file recall application
explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

September 28, 2026
Ashish/-

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…