Allahabad High Court

MUJMMIL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 13 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that a compromise between the parties justifies dismissal even of non‑compoundable offences.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings (Case No. 3740 of 2025) arising from offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the IPC. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was verified by the trial court on 22.08.2026. The High Court examined precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, which allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists and continuation of proceedings would be futile. Relying on these authorities, the Court held that quashing would not cause any error or prejudice and would serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the chargesheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding were quashed and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 528 CrPC to quash such proceedings despite the non‑compoundable nature of the offences.
Whether established Supreme Court precedents permit quashing in the interest of justice when a genuine settlement is reached.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

compromise
quash criminal proceedings
non‑compoundable offence
Section 528 CrPC
settlement
justice
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30962 of 2026

Mujmmil And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Imaran Ahmad

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

1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Imran
Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
28.09.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.11.2025 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3740 of 2025, arising out of Case
Crime No.273 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Shahi,
District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M, Court No.2,
Bareilly, 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 22.08.2026 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 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
NA528 No. 30962 of 2026
2

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, chargesheet dated 28.09.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated
07.11.2025 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3740 of 2025,
arising out of Case Crime No.273 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352,
351(2) BNS, P.S. Shahi, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned
A.C.J.M, Court No.2, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

September 14, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…