Allahabad High Court
SHIVAM KUMAR MISHRAversusSTATE 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 of the case even though the offences are non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicant, Shivam Kumar Mishra, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 52096 of 2026) arising from offences under Sections 281, 125A and 324(4) of the Indian Penal Code. Both parties had reached a compromise, which was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and admitted by counsel for the State. 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 settlement of a dispute, even in cases involving offences under Sections 281, 125A and 324(4) IPC, warrants dismissal of the criminal case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 125A, 281, 324(4)
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash criminal proceeding
- compromise settlement
- non‑compoundable offence
- Indian Penal Code
- justice
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31835 of 2026
Shivam Kumar Mishra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghuvansh Misra, Shailendra Kumar
Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Mishra, G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. On the request of learned counsel for applicant, this matter is being taken
up out of turn considering the urgency.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for State.
Supplementary affidavit preferred by learned counsel for applicant in Court
is taken on record.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
Case No.52096 of 2026 (State vs. Shivam Kumar Mishra) arising out of
Case Crime No.24 of 2026, under sections 281, 125A, 324(4) BNS, P.S.
Gwaltoli, District- Kanpur Nagar, including charge-sheet dated 08.03.2026
and cognizance/summoning order dated 04.05.2026 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Kanpur Nagar.
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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Kanpur Nagar on dated
17.09.2026, 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.
NA528 No. 31835 of 2026
2
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
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.52096 of 2026 (State vs. Shivam Kumar
Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No.24 of 2026, under sections 281, 125A,
324(4) BNS, P.S. Gwaltoli, District- Kanpur Nagar, including charge-sheet
dated 08.03.2026 and cognizance/summoning order dated 04.05.2026 passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Kanpur Nagar, 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…