Allahabad High Court
MUNIB ANSARI AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that the verified compromise rendered continuation of the non‑compoundable offences futile and contrary to the ends of justice.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court entertained an urgent application under Section 528 of the CrPC filed by Munib Ansari and six others seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 493 of 2011 (State vs. Munib Ansari et al.) relating to offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC. The applicants had reached a compromise with the State, which was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 25‑08‑2026 and acknowledged by the learned AGA. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement renders continuation of proceedings futile, the Court held that the compromise justified dismissal of the criminal action. Consequently, the entire proceedings, including the charge‑sheet dated 04‑07‑2010 and the cognizance order dated 18‑02‑2011, were quashed. The application was therefore allowed, with a direction that any aggrieved party may file a recall application.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under the IPC be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Does a compromise, once verified by the magistrate, extinguish the criminal liability despite the nature of the offences?
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash such proceedings under Section 528 CrPC?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- compromise settlement
- IPC sections 419,420,467,468,471,504
- judicial futility
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33766 of 2026
Munib Ansari And 6 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Patel, Pradeep Kumar
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
today is taken on record.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.493 of 2011 (State vs. Munib Ansari and Others) arising
out of Case Crime No.810 of 2010, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,
504 IPC, P.S. Ghughali, District- Maharajganj, pending before learned court
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj, including charge-sheet
dated 04.07.2010 and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2011 on the
basis of compromise dated 22.07.2026.
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 Civil Judge (SD) FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Maharajganj 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.
NA528 No. 33766 of 2026
2
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
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 Criminal Case No.493 of 2011 (State vs.
Munib Ansari and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.810 of 2010, under
sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 IPC, P.S. Ghughali, District-
Maharajganj, pending before learned court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Maharajganj, including charge-sheet dated 04.07.2010 and
cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2011, 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…