Allahabad High Court
X JUVENILEversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court quashed the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the entire proceedings as the parties had settled the dispute, despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Summary
The juvenile applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 01‑10‑2023, the cognizance/summoning order dated 25‑01‑2024, and the entire proceedings pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli, relating to offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 336 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Both parties admitted that a compromise had been reached and was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre) that allow quashing of non‑compoundable criminal proceedings when a genuine settlement exists, the High Court held that continuation of the case would be futile. Consequently, the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and all proceedings were quashed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the ground of a settlement between the offender and the victim.
- Whether Section 528 of the CrPC empowers the court to quash a charge‑sheet and related proceedings in a juvenile case upon settlement.
- Whether the Supreme Court judgments in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre are applicable to the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 323, 336, 504, 506
Subjects
- Juvenile Justice
- Compromise
- Quash criminal proceedings
- Non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- Settlement
- Criminal Law Amendment Act
- IPC offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32235 of 2026
X Juvenile
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated
01.10.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 25.01.2024 passed by
learned Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli as well as the entire proceedings
of Case No.18/9 of 2024 (State Vs. Nikhil son of Sanjeev), arising out of
Case Crime No.444 of 2023, U/s 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 336 IPC, and
Section 7 of Crl. Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kandhla, District Shamli,
pending in the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been
verified by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kairana on dated
14.08.2024, which has been appended with this application as Annexure
No.7, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by both the
parties/learned counsel for applicant.
4. 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.
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 58 of the
NA528 No. 32235 of 2026
2
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.
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. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, charge-sheet dated 01.10.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated
25.01.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli as well as
the entire proceedings of Case No.18/9 of 2024 (State Vs. Nikhil son of
Sanjeev), arising out of Case Crime No.444 of 2023, U/s 147, 148, 323,
504, 506, 336 IPC, and Section 7 of Crl. Law Amendment Act, P.S.
Kandhla, District Shamli, pending in the court of learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Shamli, are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
9. 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 8, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…