Allahabad High Court
AYYUB AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that, notwithstanding the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, the compromise between the parties justified quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants, Ayyub and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and proceedings in a criminal case (Case No. 10457/22) involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 352, 323 and 506 IPC. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the compromise was verified by the Judicial Magistrate on 19‑08‑2026. Both sides jointly submitted that there was no prejudice and that continuing the trial would be futile. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre), the High Court held that the court may quash proceedings in the interest of justice even when the offences are non‑compoundable. Consequently, the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and all proceedings were quashed, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC?
- Whether the court may exercise its discretion to quash such proceedings in the interest of justice despite the non‑compoundable nature of the offences?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 323, 352, 452, 506
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceedings
- compromise settlement
- non‑compoundable offences
- justice
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29009 of 2026
Ayyub And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Srijan Pandey
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
03.09.2022 cognizance/summoning order dated 04.11.2022 and the entire
proceedings of Case No.10457/22 (State vs. Ayyub and another) arising
out of Case Crime No.174/2022, under sections 147, 148, 452, 352, 323,
506 IPC, P.S. Kamndhla, District Shamli, pending in the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Shamli.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been
verified by learned Judicial Magistrate, Shamli on dated 19.08.2026,
which has been appended with ordersheet to this application, this fact has
also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite
parties.
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. 29009 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 03.09.2022 cognizance/summoning order dated
04.11.2022 and the entire proceedings of Case No.10457/22 (State vs.
Ayyub and another) arising out of Case Crime No.174/2022, under
sections 147, 148, 452, 352, 323, 506 IPC,P.S. Kamndhla, District
Shamli, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Shamli, 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 21, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…