Allahabad High Court
MEHKAR SINGH @ MEHKAR BHATIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that despite the offences being non‑compoundable, the proceedings were quashed as the dispute was settled and continuation would be futile.
Summary
Mehkar Singh filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 13151 of 2025, which involved offences under Sections 386, 387, 388, 389, 506, 190, 188 and 120‑B of the IPC. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the settlement was verified by the magistrate on 18 August 2026. Both counsel accepted the compromise, arguing that continuation of the criminal trial would be futile. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v State of Punjab 2012, Madhavrao Scindia v Angre 1988, H.N. Pandakumar v State of Karnataka 2025), held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where a genuine settlement exists. Consequently, the court quashed the chargesheet, cognizance order and all proceedings, and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the basis of a compromise/settlement between the parties under Section 528 CrPC?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 188, 190, 386, 387, 388, 389, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- IPC offences
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32763 of 2026
Mehkar Singh @ Mehkar Bhati
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anupam Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vimalendra Kumar Shukla
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for applicant and Sri
Vimalendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well
as learned AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
23.05.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 19.08.2025 along with
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.13151 of 2025 (State Vs. Rajendra
Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.114 of 2025, under Sections
386, 387, 388, 389, 506, 190, 188, 120-B IPC, P.S. Surajpur, District
Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Budh Nagar, on the basis of compromise.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant 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. 32763 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 23.05.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated
19.08.2025 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.13151 of
2025 (State Vs. Rajendra Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime
No.114 of 2025, under Sections 386, 387, 388, 389, 506, 190, 188, 120-B
IPC, P.S. Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Budh Nagar, are
hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
September 14, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…