Allahabad High Court
DHANPAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that, in view of the genuine amicable settlement and the absence of any adverse impact on society, the criminal proceedings may be quashed even though the offences are non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet and subsequent proceedings relating to offences under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC, on the ground that the parties had reached an amicable compromise which was verified by the trial court. Both sides admitted the existence of the settlement. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh, Madhavrao Scindia and H.N. Pandakumar) that allow quashing of non‑compoundable criminal proceedings where a genuine compromise exists and no public interest is harmed, exercised its inherent powers to set aside the chargesheet and the cognizance order. Consequently, the application was allowed and the criminal proceedings were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 CrPC to quash such proceedings despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 325, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- criminal procedure
- settlement
- inherent powers
- IPC 323
- IPC 325
- IPC 504
- IPC 506
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32079 of 2026
Dhanpal And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Karunesh Narayan Tripathi
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and
Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as
well as learned AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
21.10.2016 and cognizance/summoning order dated 09.05.2017 along with
entire proceedings of Session Trial No.340 of 2019 (State Vs. Dhanpal and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.531 of 2016, under Sections 323, 325,
504, 506 IPC, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly, pending in the court of
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Bareilly, on the
basis of compromise.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified
by learned court concerned on dated 18.08.2026 which has been appended
with present application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by
learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and
as such, there would be no harm and error if the proceedings may be
quashed in light of the compromise.
5. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 54 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
NA528 No. 32079 of 2026
2
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 restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor.
6. 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.
7. In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC
37], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed hat 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. Relevant paragraph of the
said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"5. In light of the amicable settlement and the complainant's unequivocal
consent, as evidenced by the Interlocutory Application, this Court finds it
appropriate to allow the present M.A. While the offense under Section 326
IPC is non- compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, the exceptional circumstances of this case, including the
voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the exercise of this Court's
inherent powers to give effect to the compromise."
8. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, chargesheet dated 21.10.2016 and cognizance/summoning order dated
09.05.2017 along with entire proceedings of Session Trial No.340 of 2019
(State Vs. Dhanpal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.531 of 2016,
under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly,
pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court
No.13, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
September 21, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…