Allahabad High Court

PUSHPENDRA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings on the ground of a valid compromise between the parties.

Summary

The applicants filed a petition under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings (Case No. 11732 of 2025) relating to offences under Sections 352, 351(3) and 109(1) of the IPC arising from a dispute in Bulandshahar. The parties had entered into a compromise on 4 November 2025, which was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and admitted by the opposing side. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre, and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka) the Court held that continuation of proceedings in non‑compoundable offences would be futile where a genuine settlement exists. The Court concluded that quashing the proceedings would serve the ends of justice and ordered the charge‑sheet and related orders to be set aside. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the criminal proceedings were terminated.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC.
Whether the compromise entered into by the parties is sufficient to justify setting aside the charge‑sheet and cognizance order.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 351(3), 352

Subjects

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

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38343 of 2026

Pushpendra And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Dubey, Santosh Kumar
Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated
28.02.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 07.08.2025 and the entire
proceedings of Case No.11732 of 2025 (State vs. Pushpendra and others)
arising out of Case Crime No.268 of 2024, under sections 352, 351(3),
109(1) BNS, P.S. Narsena, District- Bulandshahar, pending in the court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Bulandshahar, on the basis of
compromise dated 04.11.2025 entered between the parties.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified
in pursuance to earlier direction made by co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 25.09.2025 in Application u/s 528 BNSS No.35908 of
2025, by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3,
Bulandshahar on dated 06.11.2025, which has been appended at page no.70
of the instant application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by
learned AGA.

4. 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.

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. 38343 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 charge-sheet dated 28.02.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated
07.08.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No.11732 of 2025 (State vs.
Pushpendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.268 of 2024, under
sections 352, 351(3), 109(1) BNS, P.S. Narsena, District- Bulandshahar,
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
Bulandshahar, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…