Allahabad High Court

SANJEEV @ KARU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court held that the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 CrPC where the parties have amicably settled the dispute, even though the offences are non‑compoundable, as continuation of the trial would be 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 Case No. 954 of 2022, which stemmed from Crime No. 663 of 2017 involving offences under Sections 452, 307, 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Earlier, the High Court had directed the parties to obtain a court‑verified compromise, which was subsequently filed and verified by the Additional Judicial Magistrate. The opposite parties raised no objection to the compromise. Relying on precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists and continuation of the trial would be futile, the Court held that the proceedings could be dismissed in the interest of justice. Consequently, the entire criminal 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 under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the High Court may exercise its power to quash such proceedings despite the offences being non‑compoundable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506

Subjects

criminal procedure
Section 528 CrPC
compromise
non‑compoundable offences
quash of criminal proceedings
settlement
justice

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35950 of 2026

Sanjeev @ Karu And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharad Kumar
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 the entire
proceeding of Session Case no. 954 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime no.
663 of 2017 under Section 452, 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, PS-
Shikohabad, District Firozabad including charge sheet dated 15.2.2018.

3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that earlier, applicants
approached this Court by way of filing Application u/s 528 BNSS no. 52381
of 2026 (Sanjeev @ Karu and others vs. State of U.P. and another) wherein
vide order dated 14.5.2026 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
applicants were directed to appear before learned court concerned and get
the compromise entered between them verified by the said court. In
compliance of order dated 14.5.2026 passed by this Court, parties concerned
appeared before court concerned and filed fresh compromise deed and the
said compromise entered between applicants and opposite party no. 2 has
been verified by learned court concerned and verification report dated
11.6.2026 has already been received from learned Additional Judicial
Magistrate, Court no. 10, Firozabad and the same is appended as Annexure
no. 5 to the instant application wherein it is mentioned that compromise
entered by both the parties have been verified by learned court concerned.

4. Learned counsels for opposite parties showed no objection to aforesaid
NA528 No. 35950 of 2026
2

contention of learned counsel for applicants.

5. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute 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 verification report.

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
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 Case no. 954 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime no.
663 of 2017 under Section 452, 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, PS-
Shikohabad, District Firozabad, 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
NA528 No. 35950 of 2026
3

betrayed, then in that event, he/she may file recall application explaining the
reasons for filing the said application.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 8, 2026
Shaswat

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…