Allahabad High Court
BHANU PRAKASH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that a genuine 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 criminal proceedings (Case No. 7748 of 2026) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, involving offences under Sections 420, 406, 120B, 504 and 506 IPC. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was verified by the magistrate and acknowledged by both sides. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists, the High Court examined whether the compromise justified dismissal of the case. The Court held that continuation of the proceedings would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and 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, negates any legal error or prejudice to the State.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 406, 420, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash criminal proceeding
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31479 of 2026
Bhanu Prakash And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhananjay Kumar, G.A., Vishal Kumar
Singh
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 applicants and learned AGA for State.
Supplementary affidavit preferred by learned counsel for applicants in Court
is taken on record.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
Case No.7748 of 2026 (State vs. Bhanu Prakash and Others) arising out of
Case Crime No.645 of 2025, under sections 420, 406, 120B, 504, 506 IPC,
P.S. Sikandra, District- Nagar (Commissionerate Agra), pending before
learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, including charge-sheet
dated 10.01.2026 and cognizance/summoning order dated 19.05.2026.
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, Agra 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
NA528 No. 31479 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 entire proceedings of Case No.7748 of 2026 (State vs. Bhanu Prakash
and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.645 of 2025, under sections 420,
406, 120B, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sikandra, District- Nagar (Commissionerate
Agra), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra,
including charge-sheet dated 10.01.2026 and cognizance/summoning order
dated 19.05.2026, 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…