Allahabad High Court

SATYA NARAYAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the Sessions Trial proceedings as the parties had settled the dispute and no injustice would result from dismissal.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the Sessions Trial No.175 of 2007 (State & Manik Singh vs. Sovran and Others) concerning an offence under Section 364 IPC. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the compromise was verified by the Additional Session Judge on 31‑08‑2026. Both counsel accepted the settlement and urged the court to dismiss the criminal proceeding. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre, and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka) that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine compromise exists, the High Court held that continuation of the trial would be futile. Consequently, the court quashed the entire proceedings and allowed the application.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding for a non‑compoundable offence (IPC 364) can be quashed on the ground of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC.
Whether the Supreme Court judgments cited provide a basis to set aside the Sessions Trial despite the offence being non‑compoundable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 364

Subjects

quash criminal proceeding
compromise settlement
non‑compoundable offence
Section 528 CrPC
Section 364 IPC
settlement in criminal law
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33247 of 2026

Satya Narayan And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Rathore
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. On the request of learned counsel for applicants, this matter is being taken
up out of turn considering the urgency.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for State.

3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
Sessions Trial No.175 of 2007 (State & Manik Singh vs. Sovran and Others)
arising out of Case Crime No.C-5 of 2005, under section 364 IPC, P.S. Sirsa
Kalar, District- Jalaun, pending before learned court of Additional Session
Judge/Special Judge (DAA), Jalaun at Orai.

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 Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (DAA), Jalaun at Orai on
dated 31.08.2026, which has been appended with the records of instant
application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned
AGA.

5. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned AGA 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
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
NA528 No. 33247 of 2026
2

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 Sessions Trial No.175 of 2007 (State & Manik
Singh vs. Sovran and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.C-5 of 2005,
under section 364 IPC, P.S. Sirsa Kalar, District- Jalaun, pending before
learned court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (DAA), Jalaun at
Orai, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…