Allahabad High Court
NITU ALIAS NITU PRADHAN ALIAS HARENDRA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The Court held that, notwithstanding the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, a verified compromise between the parties warrants quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 365 of 2022, which involved offences under Sections 308 and 325 of the IPC, on the ground that the parties had reached a compromise that was verified by the trial court. The High Court, after noting a coordinate bench order directing verification of the compromise and the trial court’s subsequent verification, considered Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even in certain cognizable and non‑compoundable offences. The Court observed that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose since the dispute was settled. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings and allowed the application without costs.
Issues considered
- Can a compromise between parties be permitted and the criminal proceedings quashed in cases involving non‑compoundable offences under Sections 308 and 325 IPC?
- Does verification of a compromise by the trial court satisfy the requirements of Section 528 CrPC for quashing proceedings?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 325
Subjects
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offence
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 CrPC
- Sections 308 IPC
- Section 325 IPC
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40740 of 2025
Nitu Alias Nitu Pradhan Alias Harendra And
Another .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vivek Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Suraj Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Singh,
learned counsel for the applicants, and the learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State as well as perused the entire material available on
record.
2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer
to quash the 20th November, 2021 as well as the entire proceedings of
Sessions Trial No. 365 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Sonu & Others), arising out
of Case Crime No. 0903 of 2021, under Sections 308 and 325 I.P.C. Police
Station-Dadari, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Gautam Budh Nagar, on the basis of
compromised so arrived at between the parties.
3. While entertaining the present criminal application, a Coordinate Bench of
this Court passed the order dated 16th July, 2026 directing the applicants to
file the compromise so entered into between the parties before the trial court
for its verification and the trial court was inturn directed to verify the same.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the trial court vide order dated28th July,
2026 has verified the compromise so arrived at between the parties, a copy of
which has been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit filed
in the Court today which is taken on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromised so
NA528 No. 40740 of 2025
2
arrived at between the parties and the same has also been verified by the
court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be may be
quashed by this Court.
6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection, if the proceedings in the
aforesaid case are quashed.
7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC
675,
(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC
677,
(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
(vi).Dimpey Gujral W/o Vivek Gujral & Others Vs. Union Territory Thru.
Administrator Chandigarh & Others; (2013) 11 SCC 497,
(vii). H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 38 ,
and
(viii). Naushey Ali & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another; (2025) 4
SCC 78.
8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that
compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain
cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to
the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. &
Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court
in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein
above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the
court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by
NA528 No. 40740 of 2025
3
prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the
parties have already settled their dispute.
10. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 365 of 2022
(State of U.P. Vs. Sonu & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0903 of
2021, under Sections 308 and 325 I.P.C. Police Station-Dadari, District-
Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.6, Gautam Budh Nagar are hereby quashed.
11. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
September 23, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…