Allahabad High Court

ANITA SRIVASTAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceeding, holding that the settlement between the parties justified dismissal of the case despite the offences being non‑compoundable.

Summary

The applicant, Anita Srivastav, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 32 of 2026) arising from offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the IPC. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was verified before the court and no objection was raised by the State. The court examined Supreme Court precedents—Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka—holding that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is settled and continuation of the trial would be futile. Relying on these authorities, the High Court concluded that quashing would not prejudice public interest and would serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the entire proceeding was quashed and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Can a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim?
Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 528 CrPC to quash such proceedings in view of Supreme Court jurisprudence?
Is the compromise valid and free from error or prejudice to the public interest?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)

Subjects

compromise
quash criminal proceeding
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528 CrPC
IPC offences
settlement
Supreme Court precedent
high court jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30732 of 2026

Anita Srivastav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pallavi Mishra, Vivek Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Uma Nath Pandey

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of applicants 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 the entire
proceeding of Case no. 32 of 2026 (State vs. Anita Srivastava) arising out of
Case Crime no. 143 of 2025 under sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS
PS- Barhapur, District Bijnor along with charge sheet 7.5.2026 and
cognizance order dated 4.7.2026 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
Court no. 2, Nagina, Bijnor.

4. In compliance of earlier order passed by this Court, compromise
verification report has already been received from learned court concerned
and the same has been preferred today by learned counsel for applicants by
way of supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, wherein it is
mentioned that compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties.

5. Learned counsel for opposite parties showed no objection to aforesaid
contention of learned counsel for applicant.

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. 30732 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. 32 of 2026 (State vs. Anita Srivastava) arising out of
Case Crime no. 143 of 2025 under sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS
, PS- Barhapur, District Bijnor, are hereby quashed, only in respect of
applicants herein.

10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 21, 2026
Shaswat

Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…