Allahabad High Court
BHAGWAN MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where a verified compromise between the parties demonstrates that continuation of the trial would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in Case No. 46 of 2026 arising from Crime No. 136 of 2025, which involved offences under Sections 281 and 106 (non‑compoundable). The parties had reached an amicable settlement, and a compromise verification report confirming the settlement was filed before the court. The respondents raised no objection to the compromise. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre, and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka), the High Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice despite the offences being non‑compoundable. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings with respect to the applicant and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the basis of a verified compromise between the parties?
- Does Section 528 CrPC empower the court to quash such proceedings when the dispute is settled?
- Do the cited Supreme Court judgments support quashing in cases of settlement despite non‑compoundability?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 106, 281
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 CrPC
- non‑compoundable offences
- compromise settlement
- judicial discretion
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31329 of 2026
Bhagwan Mishra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dheerendra Kumar Mishra, Krishna
Dev Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shailesh Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. 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.
2. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash charge sheet
dated 23.9.2025, cognizance order dated 13.1.2026 along with entire
proceeding of Case no. 46 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime no. 136 of
2025 under sections 281, 106 BNS, PS- Shankargarh, District- Prayagraj.
3. In compliance of earlier order passed by this Court, compromise
verification report has already been received from learned concerned court
and the same is appended to order sheet wherein it is mentioned that
compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties.
4. Learned counsels for respondents showed no objection to aforesaid
contention of learned counsel for applicants.
5. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by
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.
6. 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
NA528 No. 31329 of 2026
2
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 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.
9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire
proceeding of Case no. 46 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime no. 136 of
2025 under sections 281, 106 BNS, PS- Shankargarh, District- Prayagraj, are
hereby quashed, only in respect of applicant 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
Checking your session…