Allahabad High Court

ZUBAIR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court held that even for non‑compoundable offences, criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 CrPC when the parties have reached an amicable settlement and continuation of the trial would be futile.

Summary

The applicants filed a Section 528 CrPC application seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 598 of 2020, which involved offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC arising from a 2019 crime. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was verified by the trial court on 28‑07‑2026 and acknowledged by both counsels. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists, the High Court exercised its inherent power to dismiss the proceedings as futile. The Court held that continuation of the trial would serve no purpose and justice is better served by honoring the settlement. Consequently, the application was allowed and the criminal case was quashed.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction to terminate proceedings when the dispute is settled despite the offences being non‑compoundable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 452, 504, 506

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528 CrPC
inherent jurisdiction
settlement
criminal law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29190 of 2026

Zubair And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ahmad Saeed, M. Asif
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 entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.598 of 2020 (State Vs. Zubair and others), arising out of
Case Crime No.290 of 2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.
Bithri Chainpur, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned
A.C.J.M./A.C.J. (S.D.), Court No.5, Bareilly, 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 28.07.2026 which has been appended
with this petition, 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
an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor.
NA528 No. 29190 of 2026
2

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, entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.598 of 2020 (State Vs. Zubair
and others), arising out of Case Crime No.290 of 2019, under Sections 452,
323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Bithri Chainpur, District Bareilly, pending in the
court of learned A.C.J.M./A.C.J. (S.D.), Court No.5, Bareilly, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…