Allahabad High Court
GUNJAN AWASTHI @ ANSUMAN AWASTHI AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that even for a non‑compoundable offence under Section 306 IPC, the proceedings may be quashed where a genuine compromise exists and continuation of the trial would be futile.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal trial (Sessions Trial No.187 of 2025) for an alleged offence under Section 306 of the IPC, on the ground that the parties had reached a compromise which was verified by the trial court. The learned counsel for both sides admitted the existence of a genuine settlement. The High Court examined precedents where the Supreme Court allowed quashing of non‑compoundable offences when a settlement restored peace and further trial would be futile. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre, and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that the interests of justice permit quashing even non‑compoundable offences in such circumstances. Consequently, the application was allowed and the criminal proceedings were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for a non‑compoundable offence under Section 306 IPC be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 528 CrPC to quash such proceedings?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 306
Subjects
- compromise
- quash
- non-compoundable offence
- Section 306 IPC
- Section 528 CrPC
- criminal procedure
- settlement
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30489 of 2026
Gunjan Awasthi @ Ansuman Awasthi And 4
Others .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Kumar Singh, Santosh Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajeev Kumar Agrawal
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 as well as learned AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash entire criminal
proceedings of Sessions Trial No.187 of 2025 (State Vs. Gunjan Awasthi
and others), arising out of Case Crime No.111 of 2021, under Section 306
IPC, P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court
of learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, 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 24.08.2026 which has been
appended with this application, this fact has also been ascertained and
seconded by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
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
NA528 No. 30489 of 2026
2
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.
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 criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.187 of 2025 (State
Vs. Gunjan Awasthi and others), arising out of Case Crime No.111 of
2021, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District
Farrukhabad, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad
, are hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 14, 2026
Vivek Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…