Allahabad High Court
ABHISHEK SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that the criminal proceedings were quashed as the parties had reached a genuine settlement, and continuation of the trial would be futile.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 19‑01‑2005 and related proceedings (Case No.1628 of 2005) involving offences under Sections 147, 323, 353, 504 and 506 IPC. Both parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the compromise was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 25‑08‑2026. The counsel submitted that continuation of the criminal trial would be futile and contrary to the interests of justice. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre (1988), which permit quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the charge‑sheet and the entire proceedings, allowing the application.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a settlement/compromise between the parties.
- Whether the court may exercise its inherent power to dismiss proceedings when continuation would be futile and contrary to justice.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 353, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash
- settlement
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- criminal procedure
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34170 of 2026
Abhishek Shukla
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhananjai Rai, Vibhu Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Yadav, G.A., Sandeep Kumar
Dwivedi
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 charge-sheet dated
19.01.2005, cognizance/summoning order dated 18.12.2007 and the entire
proceedings of Case No.1628 of 2005 (State vs. Sanjay Tiwari and others)
arising out of Case Crime No.761 of 2004, under Sections 147, 323, 353,
504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, pending in the
court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-7, Prayagraj.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been
verified by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-7, Prayagraj on
dated 25.08.2026, which has been appended with order sheet of this
application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by both the
parties/learned counsel for applicant.
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
NA528 No. 34170 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.
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, charge-sheet dated 19.01.2005, cognizance/summoning order dated
18.12.2007 and the entire proceedings of Case No.1628 of 2005 (State vs.
Sanjay Tiwari and others) arising out of Case Crime No.761 of 2004,
under Sections 147, 323, 353, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Colonelganj, District
Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-7, Prayagraj, 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…