Allahabad High Court
UDAYSHANKAR TRIPATHI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that the criminal proceedings are quashed in respect of the applicants as the dispute has been settled and continuation would be futile.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 1179 of 2010, which involved offences under Sections 143, 186, 506, 147, 148, 353 and 504 of the IPC. The parties had earlier been directed by this Court to obtain a court‑verified compromise, which they subsequently filed and was verified by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chakiya. The respondents raised no objection to the compromise, and the court was asked to consider whether the criminal proceedings could be terminated despite the offences being non‑compoundable. Relying on precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, the bench held that continuation of the case would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Accordingly, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants. The application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed under Section 528 CrPC when the parties have reached a court‑verified compromise?
- Does the settlement of a civil dispute justify termination of the corresponding criminal case?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 143, 147, 148, 186, 353, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- settlement
- justice
- high court
- IPC offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36086 of 2026
Udayshankar Tripathi And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saurabh Pandey
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 Criminal Case no. 1179 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime no.
0130 of 2010 under Sections 143, 186, 506, 147, 148, 353, 504 IPC, PS-
Chakiya, District Chandauli including charge sheet dated 12.12.2010 and
cognizance order dated 24.4.2014.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that earlier, applicants
approached this Court by way of filing Application u/s 528 BNSS no. 23012
of 2026 (Udayshankar Tripathi and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another)
wherein vide order dated 2.6.2026 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 2.6.2026 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
22.6.2026 has already been received from learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division)/J.M.Chakiya, Chandauli and the same is appended as Annexure
no. 2 to the instant application wherein it is mentioned that compromise
entered by both the parties have been verified by learned court concerned.
NA528 No. 36086 of 2026
2
4. Learned counsels for opposite parties 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 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 Criminal Case no. 1179 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime no.
0130 of 2010 under Sections 143, 186, 506, 147, 148, 353, 504 IPC, PS-
Chakiya, District Chandauli, are hereby quashed, only in respect of
applicants herein.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
NA528 No. 36086 of 2026
3
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 8, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…