Allahabad High Court
KULDEEP YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that the criminal proceedings may be quashed in view of the genuine compromise, even though the offences are non‑compoundable, as continuation 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 the entire Session Trial proceedings arising from a case involving offences under Sections 363, 366 and 506 IPC. The parties had reached an amicable settlement, and a compromise verification report confirming the settlement was filed. The court noted Supreme Court precedents allowing quashment of non‑compoundable criminal proceedings where a genuine compromise exists and continuation would be futile. Relying on Gian Singh, Madhavrao Scindia and H.N. Pandakumar judgments, the court held that the ends of justice favored termination of the case. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed in respect of the applicant 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 parties under Section 528 CrPC.
- Whether the court may exercise its inherent power to quash proceedings despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- justice
- settlement
- IPC 363
- IPC 366
- IPC 506
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31918 of 2026
Kuldeep Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Yashwant Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
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 20.11.2022, cognizance order dated 11.11.2024 along with entire
proceeding of Session Trial no. 330 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no.
465 of 2021 under sections 363, 366, 506 IPC, PS- Kotwali Gursahaiganj,
District- Kannauj.
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.
NA528 No. 31918 of 2026
2
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 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 Session Trial no. 330 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no.
465 of 2021 under sections 363, 366, 506 IPC, PS- Kotwali Gursahaiganj,
District- Kannauj, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicant herein.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
11. If at all, 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.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 28, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…