Allahabad High Court
AKASH KUMAR @ KALE AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that the criminal proceedings were to be quashed as the parties had settled the dispute and there was no harm in terminating the trial, despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 3012 of 2026) arising from offences under Sections 115(2), 76, 352 and 351(2) of the Bijnor North Special (BNS) Act. The parties had reached a compromise, which was verified by the Additional Session Judge on 27‑08‑2026 and was acknowledged by both counsel. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is settled and continuation of the trial would be futile. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire proceedings and allowed the application. The order also warned the opposite party that a recall application could be filed if they felt aggrieved.
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 civil or matrimonial dispute justifies quashing of related criminal charges.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 115(2), 351(2), 352, 528, 76
Subjects
- quash criminal proceeding
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32046 of 2026
Akash Kumar @ Kale And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Mishra, Avesh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
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 at the behest of applicants in Court is
taken on record.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
Case No.3012 of 2026 (State vs. Akash @ Kale and Others) arising out of
Case Crime No.152 of 2025, under sections115(2), 76, 352, 351(2) BNS,
P.S. Dhampur, District- Bijnor, pending before learned court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, including charge-sheet dated 28.04.2025 and
cognizance/summoning order dated 08.04.2026.
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 Additional Session Judge (FTC), Court No.1, Bijnor on dated
27.08.2026, which has been appended with the records of instant application
as well as in the supplementary affidavit, this fact has also been ascertained
and seconded by learned AGA.
5. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned AGA 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. 32046 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.3012 of 2026 (State vs. Akash @
Kale and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.152 of 2025, under
sections115(2), 76, 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Dhampur, District- Bijnor,
pending before learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, including
charge-sheet dated 28.04.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated
08.04.2026, are hereby quashed, in respect of applicant(s) herein.
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 28, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…