Allahabad High Court

NARESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that, notwithstanding the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, the verified compromise justified quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC.

Summary

The applicant filed a Section 528 CrPC application seeking to quash criminal proceedings (ST No.21 of 2020) arising from offences under IPC sections 323, 506 and 308. The parties had already reached a compromise, which was verified by the Additional District and Sessions Judge on 26‑05‑2026 and admitted by both sides. The court considered Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists and the continuation of the trial would be futile. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, the court held that quashing was in the interest of justice. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Whether Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits the court to dismiss such proceedings despite the nature of the offences.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 506

Subjects

quash
compromise
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528 CrPC
criminal procedure
settlement
IPC 323
IPC 506
IPC 308
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36132 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajat Agarwal, Virpratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. On the request of learned counsel for applicant, this matter is being taken
up out of turn considering the urgency.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for State.

3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
ST No.21 of 2020 (State vs. Hari Shankar and Others) arising out of Case
Crime No.316 of 2019, under sections 323, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Kotwali
Kalpi, District- Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jalaun at Orai.

4. 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 District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jalaun at
Orai on dated 26.05.2026, which has been appended at page no.22 of the
instant application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by
learned AGA.

5. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned AGA 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.

6. 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 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
NA528 No. 36132 of 2026
2

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 the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC
37], Hon'ble the 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. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, the entire proceedings of ST No.21 of 2020 (State vs. Hari Shankar and
Others) arising out of Case Crime No.316 of 2019, under sections 323, 506,
308 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Kalpi, District- Jalaun, pending in the court of learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jalaun at Orai, are
hereby quashed.

10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

11. 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 8, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…