Allahabad High Court
ASHOK KUMAR VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that the criminal proceeding may be quashed as the parties have settled, and continuation would be an exercise in futility.
Summary
The applicant, Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the charge sheet and the Session Trial No. 514 of 2020 relating to an alleged attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The parties had reached an amicable settlement, which was verified by the court, and both sides consented to the quashal. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre, and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka), held that even though the offence is non‑compoundable, continuation of the criminal proceeding would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the entire proceeding was quashed in respect of the applicant. The application was allowed, and the court warned that any aggrieved party may file a recall application.
Issues considered
- Can a criminal proceeding for a non‑compoundable offence (IPC Section 307) be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a compromise/settlement between the parties?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307
Subjects
- quash criminal proceeding
- compromise settlement
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 528 CrPC
- IPC Section 307
- High Court
- criminal law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34686 of 2026
Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gireesh Chandra Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sarthak Sinha, G.A., Shubham Yadav
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 charge sheet
dated 8.5.2020, cognizance order dated 19.5.2020 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Sonbhadra along with entire proceeding of Session Trial no. 514
of 2020 arising out of Case Crime no. 263 of 2020 under sections 307 IPC,
PS- Robertganj, District- Sonbhadra.
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.
NA528 No. 34686 of 2026
2
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 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 Session Trial no. 514 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime no.
263 of 2020 under sections 307 IPC, PS- Robertganj, District- Sonbhadra,
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 28, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…