Allahabad High Court

MUZAMMIL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the charge‑sheet and all pending proceedings, holding that the compromise between the parties makes continuation of the criminal 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 the charge‑sheet dated 2 January 2019, the cognizance order dated 4 November 2025, and the entire criminal proceedings (Case No. 106 of 2019) relating to offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 307 IPC arising from a 2018 incident. The parties had reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded by the Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate on 21 September 2026, and both sides consented to the quashing of the case. The principal legal question was whether a criminal proceeding, even for non‑compoundable offences, could be terminated on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim. Relying on the Supreme Court’s observations in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre (1988), the High Court held that continuation of the trial would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the court quashed the charge‑sheet and all pending proceedings and allowed the application.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between the parties can justify quashing criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences
Whether Section 528 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash such proceedings

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
compromise
non‑compoundable offences
high court
justice
Gian Singh case
Madhavrao Scindia case
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35530 of 2026

Muzammil And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surendra Mohan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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
02.01.2019, cognizance/summoning order dated 04.11.2025 and the entire
proceedings of Case No.106 of 2019 (State vs. Jamrati and others) arising
out of Case Crime No.447 of 2018, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, 427, 307 IPC, P.S. Pipraich, District Gorakhpur, pending in the
court of learned Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate-14,
Gorakhpur.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been
verified by learned Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate-14,
Gorakhpur on dated 21.09.2026, which has been appended with order
sheet to this application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded
by learned counsel for opposite parties.

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
NA528 No. 35530 of 2026
2

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.

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 02.01.2019, cognizance/summoning order dated
04.11.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No.106 of 2019 (State vs.
Jamrati and others) arising out of Case Crime No.447 of 2018, under
sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 307 IPC, P.S. Pipraich,
District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil
Judge/Judicial Magistrate-14, Gorakhpur, 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 28, 2026
Ashish/-

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…