Allahabad High Court
KALLU AND AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that, notwithstanding the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 CrPC when the parties have settled the dispute and justice demands termination of the case.
Summary
The applicants Kallu and others filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No. 700 of 2018) arising from offences under Sections 394 and 325 of the IPC. The parties had already reached a compromise, which was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21‑09‑2026 and was acknowledged by both counsel. Both parties jointly submitted that there would be no injustice in terminating the case. Relying on the Supreme Court’s observations in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre (1988), the High Court held that continuation of proceedings in settled disputes, even for non‑compoundable offences, would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the court quashed the entire proceedings and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 394 and 325 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 in the interest of justice.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 325, 394
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- justice
- IPC Section 394
- IPC Section 325
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32935 of 2026
Kallu And And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Parvesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings
of Case No.700 of 2018, (State vs. Kallu and others), arising out of Case
Crime No.1073 of 2017, under sections 394, and 325 IPC, P.S. Handia,
District Allahabad.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been
verified by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Prayagraj on
dated 21.09.2026, which has been appended with supplementary affidavit
preferred on behalf of the applicants, this fact has also been ascertained
and seconded by learned counsel for opposite parties.
4. 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.
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 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
NA528 No. 32935 of 2026
2
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.
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. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, entire proceedings of Case No.700 of 2018, (State vs. Kallu and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.1073 of 2017, under sections 394,
and 325 IPC, P.S. Handia, District Allahabad, are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
9. 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
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…