Allahabad High Court
BALVEER SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that where the parties have amicably settled the dispute, continuation of proceedings for non‑compoundable offences would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No.2911 of 2026) arising from a 2016 offence under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1 September 2026 and was acknowledged by both counsel. The court considered whether a criminal case involving non‑compoundable offences could be dismissed solely on the basis of a settlement between the offender and the victim. Relying on the Supreme Court’s observations in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre (1988), the bench held that continuation of the trial would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the proceedings and allowed the application. The order also warned that any aggrieved party could file a recall application.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the ground of a compromise/settlement between the parties?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 528 CrPC to dismiss such proceedings in the interest of justice?
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
- IPC offences
- settlement
- justice
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33689 of 2026
Balveer Singh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Roshani Dwivedi, Sarvesh Kumar
Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Shukla, 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.2911 of 2026, (State vs. Balveer Singh and another), arising
out of Case Crime No.479 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
IPC, P.S. P.s. Bilaspur, District Rampur, pending in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.
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, Rampur on dated
01.09.2026, which has been appended with order sheet to this application,
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
NA528 No. 33689 of 2026
2
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, Case No.2911 of 2026, (State vs. Balveer Singh and another),
arising out of Case Crime No.479 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC, P.S. P.s. Bilaspur, District Rampur, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, 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 21, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…