Allahabad High Court
VIJESH VOHRA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The High Court held that, notwithstanding the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, the settlement between the parties justifies quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants, Vijesh Vohra and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 22‑05‑2024 and the ensuing criminal proceedings (Case No. 3669 of 2024) for offences under IPC sections 452, 354(B), 323, 504 and 506. The parties had already reached a compromise, which was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 22‑12‑2025 and was acknowledged by both counsel. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 10 SCC 303 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692), the High Court held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is settled and continuation of proceedings would be futile. Consequently, the court quashed the chargesheet, the cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding. The application was allowed, and the parties were advised that a recall application could be filed if any party feels aggrieved.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its power under Section 528 CrPC to quash the chargesheet and proceedings despite the nature of the offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354(B), 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash of criminal proceedings
- compromise settlement
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- justice
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40857 of 2025
Vijesh Vohra And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Shams Uz Zaman, G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
22.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.06.2024 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3669 of 2024 (State Vs. Vijesh
Vohra and another), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2024, under
Sections 452, 354(B), 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Baraut, District Baghpat,
pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, 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 22.12.2025 which has been appended
with the supplementary affidavit, this fact has also been ascertained and
seconded by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties 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
NA528 No. 40857 of 2025
2
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
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 22.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated
20.06.2024 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3669 of 2024
(State Vs. Vijesh Vohra and another), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of
2024, under Sections 452, 354(B), 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Baraut, District
Baghpat, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat,
are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting
parties. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that she has been duped or
betrayed, then in that event, she may seek recall of this order by way of
filing recall application explaining the reasons.
February 3, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…