Allahabad High Court

UBAISHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 15 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicant under Section 528 CrPC, holding that a genuine settlement justifies dismissal even of non‑compoundable offences.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings (Case No. 2617 of 2026) arising from Crime No. 640 of 2025, which involved offences under Sections 352, 115(2) and 351(3) of the IPC. The parties had earlier filed a writ petition and, following the court’s direction, entered into a verified compromise deed which was approved by the lower court. The State’s Additional Government Advocate raised no objection to the compromise. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists, the High Court held that continuation of the proceedings would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings against the applicant and allowed the application.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 352, 115(2) and 351(3) IPC can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a verified compromise between the parties.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash criminal proceeding
non-compoundable offence
settlement
compromise
Allahabad High Court
criminal law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37645 of 2026

Ubaish
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash the entire
proceeding of Case no. 2617 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime no. 640 of
2025 under sections 352, 115(2), 351(3) BNS, PS- Bilari, District
Moradabad including charge sheet dated 26.12.2025 and cognizance order
dated 19.2.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st,
Moradabad.

3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that earlier, applicants
approached this Court by way of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition no. 169 of
2026 (Ubaish vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) wherein vide order dated
19.1.2026 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 19.1.2026 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 30.1.2026 has already
been received from learned court concerned 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 AGA for the State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of
NA528 No. 37645 of 2026
2

learned counsel for applicant.

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 Case no. 2617 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime no. 640 of
2025 under sections 352, 115(2), 351(3) BNS, PS- Bilari, District
Moradabad, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants.

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
NA528 No. 37645 of 2026
3

reasons for filing the said application.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 16, 2026
Shaswat

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…