Allahabad High Court
MANOJ KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that even though the offence is non‑compoundable, the genuine compromise between the parties justifies quashing the criminal proceeding under Section 528 CrPC.
Summary
Manoj Kumar filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash Criminal Case No.150 of 2026 (State vs. Manoj Kumar) that arose from a charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The parties had entered into a compromise on 20 July 2026, which was verified by the Judicial Magistrate on 25 August 2026, and both sides agreed that the dispute was settled. The High Court considered Supreme Court precedents allowing quash of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre, and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that continuation of the proceeding would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for a non‑compoundable offence (IPC 406) can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for quash of proceedings after a compromise has been recorded.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceeding
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 528 CrPC
- IPC 406
- settlement
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32802 of 2026
Manoj Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Santosh Kumar Rai
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. On the request of learned counsel for applicant, 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
Criminal Case No.150 of 2026 (State vs. Manoj Kumar) arising out of Case
Crime No.133 of 2024, under section 406 IPC, P.S. Awagarh, District- Etah,
pending before learned court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.),
Jalesar, Etah, including charge-sheet dated 10.01.2025 and
cognizance/summoning order dated 31.01.2026 on the basis of compromise
dated 20.07.2026 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 Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.), Jalesar, Etah on dated
25.08.2026, 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
NA528 No. 32802 of 2026
2
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
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 Criminal Case No.150 of 2026 (State vs. Manoj
Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.133 of 2024, under section 406 IPC,
P.S. Awagarh, District- Etah, pending before learned court of Judicial
Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.), Jalesar, Etah, including charge-sheet dated
10.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 31.01.2026, 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…