Allahabad High Court
ROOP CHANDRA PAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties' settlement rendered continuation of the case futile.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (S.T. No.1146 of 2024) arising from Case Crime No.62 of 2021, which involved multiple non‑compoundable IPC offences. Both parties had reached an amicable settlement, a compromise was recorded and verified by the Additional Session Judge on 11‑09‑2026, and the opposite party consented to the quash. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre) that allow termination of futile criminal proceedings when parties settle, held that continuation would be an exercise in futility. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding and allowed the application. The order also warned that any aggrieved party could file a recall application.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC when the parties have settled the dispute.
- Whether the settlement and verification by the Additional Session Judge satisfy the requirements for quashing the case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 147, 225, 260, 262, 406, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash of proceedings
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- justice
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33112 of 2026
Roop Chandra Pal And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prem Prakash Yadav, Shri Prakash
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 S.T. No.1146 of 2024 (State Vs. Roop Chand Pal and others), arising
out of Case Crime No.62 of 2021, under sections 147, 225, 260, 262, 406,
417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, P.s. Cantt. District
Varanasi.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been
verified by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.14, Varanasi on
dated 11.09.2026, which has been appended with supplementary
affidavit preferred on behalf of applicant, this fact has also been
ascertained and seconded by both the parties/learned counsel for
applicant.
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
NA528 No. 33112 of 2026
2
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.
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 S.T. No.1146 of 2024 (State Vs. Roop Chand
Pal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.62 of 2021, under sections
147, 225, 260, 262, 406, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC,
P.s. Cantt. District Varanasi., 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…