RAJENDRA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32121 of 2026

Rajendra And 2 Others
                                                             .....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. Heard Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for applicants and
Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well
as learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
13.12.2016 and cognizance/summoning order dated 14.03.2017 along with
entire proceedings of Session Trial No.244 of 2019 (State Vs. Rajendra and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.477 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324,
504, 506, 308, 325 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. 32121 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 13.12.2016 and cognizance/summoning order dated
                                    14.03.2017 along with entire proceedings of Session Trial No.244 of 2019
                                    (State Vs. Rajendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No.477 of 2016,
                                    under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 308, 325 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