Allahabad High Court
SURAJ SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that the criminal proceedings should be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute, despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 706 of 2016) relating to offences under IPC sections 419, 420, 452, 323, 504 and 506. The parties had reached an amicable settlement, which was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 25‑08‑2026. Both counsel and the AGA accepted the compromise and argued that continuing the prosecution would be futile and contrary to the interests of justice. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre, H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka), held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where a genuine compromise exists and no societal harm is caused. Consequently, the court quashed the entire proceedings and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the ground of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether the settlement, verified by the magistrate, negates the need for continuation of the prosecution.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 419, 420, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- compromise settlement
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- Indian Penal Code
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33684 of 2026
Suraj Singh And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Kumar Vaishya
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.
Supplementary affidavit preferred by learned counsel for applicants in Court
is taken on record.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
Case No.706 of 2016 (State vs. Omkar Nath Singh and Others) arising out of
Case Crime No.443 of 2015, under sections 419, 420, 452, 323, 504, 506
IPC, P.S. Lanka, District- Varanasi, pending before learned court of 1st
Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Varanasi on
dated 25.08.2026, which has been appended with the records of instant
application as well as in the supplementary affidavit, 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
NA528 No. 33684 of 2026
2
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
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 Case No.706 of 2016 (State vs. Omkar Nath
Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.443 of 2015, under sections
419, 420, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Lanka, District- Varanasi, pending
before learned court of 1st Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, are hereby
quashed.
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 21, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…