Allahabad High Court
AHSAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that the criminal proceeding under Sections 333, 115(2) and 352 BNS may be quashed where a verified compromise between the parties exists, even though the offences are non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 44245 of 2025) arising from offences under Sections 333, 115(2) and 352 BNS. A compromise verification report dated 14 September 2026 confirmed that the parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the respondents raised no objection. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre, H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka) which allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists and continuation of the trial would be futile. Relying on these authorities and the verified compromise, the Court held that quashing the proceedings would serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the entire proceeding was quashed with respect to the applicants and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise settlement between the parties.
- Whether Section 528 CrPC permits the High Court to quash such proceedings despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 115(2), 333, 352, 528
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceeding
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- High Court
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29776 of 2026
Ahsan And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sankatha Devi, Shiv Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajai Kumar, Deepika Tiwari, G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1.Compromise verification report dated 14.9.2026 preferred on behalf of
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in shape of short-counter affidavit, is taken on
record.
2. This matter is being taken up out of turn from the category of cases
which have been mentioned in the morning on account of urgency. Heard
learned counsel for parties.
3. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash entire
proceeding of Case no. 44245 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 229 of
2025 under sections 333, 115(2), 352 BNS, PS- Mundha Panday, District-
Moradabad including charge sheet dated 21.7.2025 and cognizance order
dated 22.8.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court no. 6, Moradabad.
4. In compliance of earlier order passed by this Court, compromise
verification report has already been received from learned concerned court
and the same is has been preferred today wherein it is mentioned that
compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties.
5. Learned counsel for respondents showed no objection to aforesaid
contention of learned counsel for applicants.
6. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by
NA528 No. 29776 of 2026
2
learned counsel for the parties and it has been submitted that there would be
no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the
proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.
7. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble 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
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.
8. 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.
9. In case of H.N.Pandakumar vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC 37],
Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that 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.
10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire
proceeding of Case no. 44245 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 229 of
2025 under sections 333, 115(2), 352 BNS, PS- Mundha Panday, District-
Moradabad, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants.
11. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 28, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…