Allahabad High Court
RATIRAM AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the compromise between the parties justified dismissal despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants Ratiram and three others filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (ST No.211 of 2014) arising from Crime No.67 of 2014, which involved offences under Sections 316, 323 and 504 of the IPC. The parties had entered into a compromise on 6 July 2026, which was verified by the Additional District and Sessions Judge on 10 September 2026, and both sides consented to the settlement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists, the High Court examined whether the compromise justified dismissal of the case. The Court held that continuation of the proceedings would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice, and therefore ordered the entire proceeding to be quashed. Consequently, the application was allowed and the criminal case was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 316, 323 and 504 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether Section 528 CrPC permits the High Court to quash such proceedings when the dispute has been settled.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 316, 323, 504
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash of criminal proceedings
- compromise settlement
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- IPC offences
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32613 of 2026
Ratiram And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Radhey Shyam Yadav
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 parties.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
ST No.211 of 2014 (State vs. Ratiram and Others) arising out of Case Crime
No.67 of 2014, under sections 316, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Nawabganj, District-
Farrukhabad, pending before learned court of FTC-I, Farrukhabad, on the
basis of compromise dated 06.07.2026 entered between the parties.
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 District and Sessions Judge/FTC-I, Farrukhabad on
dated 10.09.2026, which has been appended with the records of instant
application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned
counsel for opposite parties.
5. 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.
6. 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 said
judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
NA528 No. 32613 of 2026
2
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 ST No.211 of 2014 (State vs. Ratiram and
Others) arising out of Case Crime No.67 of 2014, under sections 316, 323,
504 IPC, P.S. Nawabganj, District- Farrukhabad, pending before learned
court of FTC-I, Farrukhabad, 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…