Allahabad High Court
MAHENDRA PAL MAHENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the chargesheet and all proceedings in the criminal case on account of the parties' compromise.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the chargesheet and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 7172 of 2012, which involved offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5 September 2026. The court considered Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable criminal proceedings where a genuine settlement exists and continuation would be futile. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre, and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, the High Court held that no harm would arise from terminating the case. Consequently, the chargesheet, cognizance order and all related proceedings were quashed and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under the IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- Indian Penal Code
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33147 of 2026
Mahendra Pal Mahendra Singh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Satsangi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for applicants and learned
AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
27.10.2012 and cognizance/summoning order dated 1.12.2012 along with
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7172 of 2012 (State Vs. Divika and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.1644 of 2011, under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Budaun, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, 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 05.09.2026 which has been appended
with present application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by
learned AGA.
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
and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
NA528 No. 33147 of 2026
2
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 27.10.2012 and cognizance/summoning order dated
1.12.2012 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7172 of 2012
(State Vs. Divika and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1644 of 2011,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Budaun,
pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, 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…