Allahabad High Court

ANWAR HUSAIN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the charge‑sheet and all proceedings, holding that an amicable settlement justifies the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 CrPC even for non‑compoundable offences.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 29‑07‑2024 and the cognizance order dated 07‑10‑2024 in a case involving offences under Sections 333, 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the IPC. The court was shown a compromise deed dated 18‑09‑2026, which was admitted by both parties and confirmed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Relying on precedents that allow the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where an amicable settlement exists even for non‑compoundable offences, the bench held that continuation of the trial would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the charge‑sheet and all proceedings were set aside. The application was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were terminated.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the ground of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the inherent powers under Section 528 CrPC may be exercised to set aside a charge‑sheet and cognizance order in such circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 333, 351(2), 352

Subjects

compromise
non‑compoundable offences
quash criminal proceedings
Section 528 CrPC
inherent powers
amicable settlement
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33707 of 2026

Anwar Husain And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akshat Dubey, Rohan Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
29.07.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.10.2024 along with
entire proceedings of Case No.62882 of 202 (State Vs. Anwar Hussain and
another), arising out of Case Crime No.424 of 2024, under Sections 333,
115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Bilari, District Moradabad, pending in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad 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 18.09.2026 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
an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
NA528 No. 33707 of 2026
2

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 29.07.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated
07.10.2024 along with entire proceedings of Case No.62882 of 202 (State
Vs. Anwar Hussain and another), arising out of Case Crime No.424 of 2024,
under Sections 333, 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Bilari, District
Moradabad, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad,
are hereby quashed.

9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

September 28, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…