Allahabad High Court

PRAHALAD AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that a genuine settlement between the parties warrants dismissal of the case even though the offences are non‑compoundable.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 10‑01‑2025, the cognizance order dated 13‑11‑2025, and the entire criminal proceedings (Case No.62 of 2025) arising from Crime No.497 of 2024. Both parties had amicably settled the dispute, a compromise that was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 07‑09‑2026 and admitted by counsel for the State. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre (1988), the Court held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where continuation of proceedings would be futile and justice demands an end to the dispute. Consequently, the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and all proceedings were quashed. The application was allowed, and the parties were advised that any aggrieved party could file a recall application.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings under non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC when the parties have reached a settlement.
Whether the settlement and verification by the magistrate justify the quashing of the charge‑sheet and cognizance order.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
settlement
non‑compoundable offences
criminal law
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30206 of 2026

Prahalad And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Sharma
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
10.01.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 13.11.2025 and the entire
proceedings of Case No.62 of 2025, (State vs. Prahalad and others)
arising out of Case Crime No.497 of 2024, under sections 115(2), 191(2),
352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Roravar, District Aligarh, pending in the court of
learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/FTC, Aligarh.

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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2,
Aligarh on dated 07.9.2026, which has been appended with order sheet to
this application preferred on behalf of the applicants, 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. 30206 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 10.01.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated
13.11.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No.62 of 2025, (State vs.
Prahalad and others) arising out of Case Crime No.497 of 2024, under
sections 115(2), 191(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Roravar, District Aligarh,
pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/FTC, Aligarh, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…