Allahabad High Court
RAJAT AGRAHARI @ KALLAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings as the parties had amicably settled the dispute, and continuation of the case would be futile even though the offences were non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash Criminal Case No.15564 of 2024, which involved non‑compoundable offences under Sections 379, 504, 506, 427 and 384 IPC. The parties had reached an amicable settlement, a compromise that was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, and was acknowledged by both sides. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of criminal proceedings when continuation would be futile despite non‑compoundable offences, the High Court examined whether the compromise justified dismissal of the case. The Court held that the settlement removed any risk of injustice and that quashing was permissible under Section 528 CrPC. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the victim.
- Whether Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code authorises the quashing of such proceedings.
- Whether the precedents cited support the dismissal of the case despite the nature of the offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379, 384, 427, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- IPC
- Allahabad High Court
- precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31443 of 2026
Rajat Agrahari @ Kallan And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar, Shabina Kumari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aparna Malviya, G.A., Puja Chauhan
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 entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.15564 of 2024 (State vs. Rajat Agrahari @ Kallan and
Another) arising out of Case Crime No.314 of 2021, under sections 379,
504, 506, 427, 384 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District- Gorakhpur, pending learned
court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, including charge-sheet dated
30.08.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2024.
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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur on dated 18.08.2026, 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
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
NA528 No. 31443 of 2026
2
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 entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.15564 of 2024 (State vs.
Rajat Agrahari @ Kallan and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.314 of
2021, under sections 379, 504, 506, 427, 384 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District-
Gorakhpur, pending learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur,
including charge-sheet dated 30.08.2021 and cognizance/summoning order
dated 20.03.2024, 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 21, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…