Allahabad High Court

ARVIND DIWAKAR @ ARVIND KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court held that, notwithstanding the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, the proceedings may be quashed under its inherent powers under Section 528 CrPC where a genuine compromise exists and no public interest is jeopardised.

Summary

The applicant filed a Section 528 CrPC application seeking quash of the charge‑sheet and proceedings in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 333 and 109(1) of the Uttar Pradesh B.N.S. Act. The parties had reached a genuine compromise, which was verified by the trial court on 19‑08‑2026. The applicant argued that continuation of the prosecution would be futile and contrary to justice. The court examined precedents where the Supreme Court allowed quash of non‑compoundable offences on the basis of settlement, emphasizing the court’s inherent power to prevent unnecessary litigation. Relying on those decisions, the High Court exercised its power under Section 528 CrPC and quashed the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and all proceedings, allowing the application.

Issues considered

Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the ground of a compromise between the parties?
Does the High Court have inherent power under Section 528 CrPC to quash such proceedings despite the offences being non‑compoundable?
Is a verified compromise sufficient to extinguish criminal liability where public interest is not adversely affected?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Uttar Pradesh B.N.S. Act — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 333

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528 CrPC
inherent powers of court
settlement
Uttar Pradesh B.N.S. Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32485 of 2026

Arvind Diwakar @ Arvind Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
10.07.2026 and cognizance/summoning order dated 22.07.2026 along with
entire proceedings of Case No.22287 of 2026 (State Vs. Arvind Diwakar),
arising out of Case Crime No.0079 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 118(1),
333, 109(1) BNS, P.S. Bilhour, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court
of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (S.D.-2), Kanpur Dehat, 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 19.08.2026 which has been appended
with present application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by
learned AGA.

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
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
NA528 No. 32485 of 2026
2

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 10.07.2026 and cognizance/summoning order dated
22.07.2026 along with entire proceedings of Case No.22287 of 2026 (State
Vs. Arvind Diwakar), arising out of Case Crime No.0079 of 2026, under
Sections 115(2), 118(1), 333, 109(1) BNS, P.S. Bilhour, District Kanpur
Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
(S.D.-2), Kanpur Dehat, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…