Allahabad High Court
THAN SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P, AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings despite the offences being non‑compoundable, holding that a genuine compromise between the parties renders continuation of the trial futile and contrary to the ends of justice.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash Session Trial No. 797 of 2015, which stemmed from a 2013 case involving multiple IPC offences, many of which are non‑compoundable. A compromise verification report confirmed that the parties had amicably settled the dispute, and both sides raised no objection to the quash. 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 continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings with respect to the applicants and allowed the application. The order also permitted any aggrieved party to file a recall application if they felt duped.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the ground of a genuine compromise between the offender and the victim?
- Does Section 528 CrPC empower the court to dismiss such proceedings when the dispute is settled?
- Is continuation of the trial deemed an exercise in futility and contrary to the ends of justice?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- justice
- futility
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34691 of 2026
Than Singh And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P, And 5 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anupam Kumar Shukla, Shiv Sharan
Tripathi
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 Session Trial no. 797 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime no.
175 of 2013 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 325, 452, 307 IPC,
PS- Gonda, District- Aligarh.
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
NA528 No. 34691 of 2026
2
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. 797 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime no.
175 of 2013 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 325, 452, 307 IPC,
PS- Gonda, District- Aligarh, 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…