Allahabad High Court
RAJNEESH UPADHYAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that the criminal proceedings may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute and there is no harm in doing so.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Case No.1153 of 2016 (State vs. Rajneesh Upadhyay) relating to offences under Sections 120B, 419 and 420 of the IPC. The parties had reached an amicable settlement, and the compromise was verified by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate on 25‑05‑2026, a fact admitted by both counsel. The court examined precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, which allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists and continuation of prosecution would be futile. Relying on these authorities, the court held that quashing would not cause any harm and would serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the entire proceedings were quashed and the application was allowed. The order also warned the second opposite party that a recall application could be filed if they felt aggrieved.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 120B, 419 and 420 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether quashing such proceedings is in the interest of justice and does not cause any legal error.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 419, 420
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- IPC Sections 120B 419 420
- settlement
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39035 of 2026
Rajneesh Upadhyay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Krishna Dubey
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
Case No.1153 of 2016 (State vs. Rajneesh Upadhyay and Others) arising out
of Case Crime No.23 of 2016, under sections 120B, 419, 420 IPC, P.S.
Chauk, District- Varansi, pending in the court of learned Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate,Varansi.
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 Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,Varansi on dated 25.05.2026,
which has been appended with the records of 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
been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its
NA528 No. 39035 of 2026
2
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 Case No.1153 of 2016 (State vs. Rajneesh
Upadhyay and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.23 of 2016, under
sections 120B, 419, 420 IPC, P.S. Chauk, District- Varansi, pending in the
court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,Varansi, 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 16, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…