Allahabad High Court
MOHD ANWAR @ ANWAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that, notwithstanding the non‑compoundable nature of the offences under Sections 137(2) and 352 IPC, the criminal proceedings were quashed on account of the parties’ amicable settlement.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 31‑01‑2026 in State v. Anwar, on the ground that the dispute had been amicably settled and a compromise was recorded on 20‑08‑2026. The court examined whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences (Sections 137(2) and 352 IPC) could be terminated solely on the basis of a settlement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, the bench held that where a genuine compromise exists and continuation of the case would be futile, the court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings even for non‑compoundable offences. Consequently, the cognizance order and the entire case file were quashed and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Does Section 528 of the CrPC empower the High Court to set aside a cognizance/summoning order when a settlement has been reached?
- Is the recorded compromise sufficient to bar continuation of prosecution despite the nature of the offences?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 137(2), 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 352
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- inherent powers of court
- civil dispute settlement
- CrPC
- IPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32909 of 2026
Mohd Anwar @ Anwar And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishabh Agarwal, Shashank Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhinav Mishra, G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for applicants and Sri
Abhinav Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned
AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash cognizance/summoning
order dated 31.01.2026 along with entire proceedings of Case No.1161 of
2026 (State Vs. Anwar and another), arising out of Case Crime No.341 of
2025, under Sections 137(2), 352 BNS, P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad,
pending in the court of learned CJ (SD), FTC/ACJM, Firozabad, 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 20.08.2026 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
opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility
NA528 No. 32909 of 2026
2
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, cognizance/summoning order dated 31.01.2026 along with entire
proceedings of Case No.1161 of 2026 (State Vs. Anwar and another), arising
out of Case Crime No.341 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 352 BNS, P.S.
Ramgarh, District Firozabad, pending in the court of learned CJ (SD),
FTC/ACJM, Firozabad, 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…