Allahabad High Court
AMAN KHAN AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC, holding that the compromise justified termination of the case.
Summary
The applicants, Aman Khan and six others, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 26‑09‑2024, the cognizance order dated 01‑02‑2025, and the entire criminal proceedings (Case No. 2574 of 2025) relating to offences under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the IPC. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the compromise was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 05‑09‑2026. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists, the High Court held that continuation of the proceedings would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the court quashed the charge‑sheet, the cognizance order and the entire proceedings. The application was allowed.
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 compromise, verified by the magistrate, justifies 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(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- quash
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 528 CrPC
- criminal proceeding
- settlement
- Allahabad High Court
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30605 of 2026
Aman Khan And 6 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., Ritesh Kumar Agrahari
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. On the request of learned counsel for applicants, 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 charge-sheet dated
26.09.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 01.02.2025 as well as
entire proceedings of Case No.2574 of 2025 (State vs. Aman Khan and
Others) arising out of Case Crime No.343 of 2024, under Sections 191(2),
115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Roravar, District-
Aligarh, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.2, Aligarh.
4. 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 05.09.2026, which has been appended with the records of instant
application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned
counsel for opposite parties.
5. 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.
6. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
NA528 No. 30605 of 2026
2
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.
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 charge-sheet dated 26.09.2024 and cognizance/summoning order
dated 01.02.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.2574 of 2025
(State vs. Aman Khan and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.343 of
2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police
Station- Roravar, District- Aligarh, pending before learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Aligarh, are hereby quashed.
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 16, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…