Allahabad High Court
TASAVVAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The proceeding is quashed as the parties have amicably settled and there is no harm in dismissing the non‑compoundable offences.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 7257 of 2024) arising from Crime No. 309 of 2023, which alleged offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The parties had already reached an amicable settlement, which was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 28 April 2026. Both sides consented that the compromise caused no prejudice and that continuing the prosecution would be futile. The Court examined precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, which permit quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists. Relying on these authorities and the verified compromise, the Court held that the proceedings could be dismissed in the interest of justice. Consequently, the application was allowed and the criminal proceeding was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim under Section 528 CrPC.
- Whether the verified settlement constitutes sufficient ground to set aside the charge sheet and cognizance order.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash of proceedings
- compromise settlement
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38269 of 2026
Tasavvar And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Kumar, G.A., Rajshekhar Pandey
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State and Sri
Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of
Case No.7257 of 2024 (State vs. Tasavvar & others) arising out of Case
Crime No.309 of 2023, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police
Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur, including charge sheet dated
23.9.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 8.5.2024 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Saharanpur on the basis of
compromise/verification.
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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18, Saharanpur on
dated 28.04.2026, which has been appended at page no.37 of the instant
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 said
NA528 No. 38269 of 2026
2
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. 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.
8. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, the entire proceeding of Case No.7257 of 2024 (State vs. Tasavvar &
others) arising out of Case Crime No.309 of 2023, under sections 452, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur, including
charge sheet dated 23.9.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated
8.5.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st,
Saharanpur, are hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
10. 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 11, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…