Allahabad High Court
PRADIP AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that the criminal proceedings must be quashed as the parties have settled the dispute and continuation of the prosecution would be futile.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash a chargesheet dated 24‑04‑2018 and related criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC, on the ground that the dispute had been amicably settled and a compromise was recorded on 26‑02‑2026. The learned Additional Government Advocate concurred that the compromise was genuine. The court examined Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre) which allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a settlement renders continuation of prosecution futile. Relying on these authorities and the confirmed compromise, the High Court quashed the chargesheet, the cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding. The application was therefore allowed, with a note that the opposite party may file a recall application if aggrieved.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC?
- Do the Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre permit such quashing to promote settlement and avoid futility?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- Supreme Court precedent
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39968 of 2025
Pradip And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shishir Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Kumar Pandey, G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
24.04.2018 and cognizance/summoning order dated 19.05.2018 along with
entire criminal proceedings of the case arising out of Case Crime No.32 of
2017, under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Pisava,
District Aligarh, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Khair,
Aligarh, on the basis of compromise.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified
by learned court concerned on dated 26.02.2026 which has been appended
with this petition, 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 as such, there would
be no harm and error if 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 54 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 restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
NA528 No. 39968 of 2025
2
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. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case,
chargesheet dated 24.04.2018 and cognizance/summoning order dated
19.05.2018 along with entire criminal proceedings of the case arising out of
Case Crime No.32 of 2017, under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504,
506 IPC, P.S. Pisava, District Aligarh, pending in the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh, are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
9. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then
in that event, he may seek recall of this order by way of filing recall
application explaining the reasons.
March 19, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…