Allahabad High Court
AJAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that even though the offences are non‑compoundable, the proceedings may be quashed where the parties have genuinely settled and no harm to society is caused, in the interest of justice.
Summary
The applicant Ajay filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Case No.04 of 2023, which involved offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC arising from a crime in Shahzadnagar, Rampur. The parties had already reached an amicable settlement, which was verified by the Additional Sessions Judge on 25 August 2026, and both sides consented to the quashment. The High Court considered precedents where the Supreme Court allowed quashing of non‑compoundable offences when a genuine compromise existed and no public interest was jeopardised. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre, and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that continuation of the proceedings would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and all proceedings in the case. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash of proceedings
- Section 528 CrPC
- non‑compoundable offences
- IPC 363
- IPC 366
- settlement
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30467 of 2026
Ajay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jata Shankar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Nath Yadav
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. On the request of learned counsel for applicant, this matter is being taken
up out of turn considering the urgency.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
Case No.04 of 2023 (State vs. Ajay) arising out of Case Crime No.68 of
2023, under sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Shahzadnagar, District- Rampur,
pending before learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- II,
Rampur, including charge-sheet dated 20.07.2023 and
cognizance/summoning order dated 05.08.2023.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that
compromise has already been preferred in this case and the same has also
been verified by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC (CAW), Court
No.1, Rampur on dated 25.08.2026, which has been appended with the
records of instant application, this fact has also been ascertained and
seconded by learned counsel for the opposite parties.
5. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the 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.
6. 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 having
NA528 No. 30467 of 2026
2
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.
7. 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.
8. In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC
37], Hon'ble the 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.
9. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, the entire proceedings of Case No.04 of 2023 (State vs. Ajay) arising
out of Case Crime No.68 of 2023, under sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S.
Shahzadnagar, District- Rampur, pending before learned court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate- II, Rampur, including charge-sheet dated
20.07.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 05.08.2023, are hereby
quashed, in respect of applicant(s) herein.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
11. 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
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…