Allahabad High Court
SHIVAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that, despite the offences being non‑compoundable, a genuine compromise between the parties justifies quashing the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The applicant Shivam filed an application under Section 528 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No.125 of 2021) pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly, which involved offences under IPC sections 308, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 325. Both parties had reached a compromise on 18 July 2026, which was verified by the Principal Magistrate on 18 August 2026, and the compromise was jointly acknowledged by counsel. The High Court considered Supreme Court precedents allowing quash of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists and where continuation would be futile. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that quashing was in the interest of justice. Consequently, the entire proceedings were quashed and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Does the Juvenile Justice Board have jurisdiction to continue proceedings after a verified settlement?
- Is the High Court empowered under Section 528 CrPC to quash such proceedings despite the nature of the offences?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Juvenile Justice Board
- Section 528 CrPC
- IPC sections 308 323 324 504 506 325
- settlement
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31912 of 2026
Shivam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Karunesh Narayan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sunil Kumar Srivastava
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 parties.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
Case No.125 of 2021 (State vs. Shivam) arising out of Case Crime No.477
of 2016, under sections 308, 323, 324, 504, 506, 325 IPC, P.S. Bhojipura,
District- Bareilly, pending before learned court of Juvenile Justice Board,
Bareilly, including charge-sheet dated 21.12.2016 and
cognizance/summoning order dated 12.10.2021 on the basis of compromise
dated 18.07.2026.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified
by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly 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. 31912 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.125 of 2021 (State vs. Shivam) arising out
of Case Crime No.477 of 2016, under sections 308, 323, 324, 504, 506, 325
IPC, P.S. Bhojipura, District- Bareilly, pending before learned court of
Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly, including charge-sheet dated 21.12.2016
and cognizance/summoning order dated 12.10.2021, 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…