Allahabad High Court
ALAM AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that, despite the offences being non‑compoundable, the verified compromise between the parties justifies quashing the criminal proceeding.
Summary
An application under Section 528 of the CrPC was filed by Alam and two others seeking to quash criminal case No. 975 of 2024, which arose from Crime No. 146 of 2023 and alleged offences under IPC sections 406, 323 and 506. The parties had reached an amicable settlement, a compromise verification report of which was filed and confirmed in the presence of both sides. The High Court observed that, although the offences are non‑compoundable, Supreme Court precedents permit quashing when continuation of proceedings would be futile and justice is better served by honoring the settlement. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre (1988) and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka (2025), the Court held that the compromise justified dismissal of the case. Accordingly, the entire proceeding was quashed with respect to the applicants and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC.
- Whether the settlement of a dispute involving IPC sections 406, 323 and 506 warrants dismissal of the criminal case despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceeding
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- IPC sections 406 323 506
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33912 of 2026
Alam And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Mishra, Tabassum Bano
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This matter is being taken up out of turn from the category of cases
which have been mentioned in the morning on account of urgency. Heard
learned counsel for parties.
2. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash entire
proceeding of Case no. 975 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 146 of
2023 under sections 406, 323, 506 IPC, PS- Kila, District- Bareilly.
3. In compliance of earlier order passed by this Court, compromise
verification report has already been received from learned concerned court
and the same is appended to order sheet wherein it is mentioned that
compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties.
4. Learned counsels for respondents showed no objection to aforesaid
contention of learned counsel for applicants.
5. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by
learned counsel for the parties and it has been submitted that there would be
no harm and error and it 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 Hon'ble 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
NA528 No. 33912 of 2026
2
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 case of H.N.Pandakumar vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC 37],
Hon'ble 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. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire
proceeding of Case no. 975 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 146 of
2023 under sections 406, 323, 506 IPC, PS- Kila, District- Bareilly, are
hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants herein.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
11. If at all, 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.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 21, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…