Allahabad High Court
NIZAM AND 8 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the chargesheet and all criminal proceedings in the case, holding that the confirmed compromise renders continuation of the proceedings futile.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 23‑12‑2024 and the cognizance order dated 12‑09‑2025 in State v. Nizam & others (Case No. 6678 of 2025), which involved offences under Sections 74, 352, 115(2), 126(2), 131 and 191(2) of the IPC. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the compromise was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19‑02‑2026. The court considered the Supreme Court’s observations in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692, which allow quashing of criminal proceedings where continuation would be futile despite non‑compoundable offences. Relying on these precedents and the confirmed settlement, the High Court quashed 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
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether the settlement of a civil or matrimonial dispute justifies termination of pending criminal cases.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 126(2), 131, 191(2), 352, 74
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash criminal proceedings
- compromise settlement
- non‑compoundable offences
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41227 of 2025
Nizam And 8 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mazhar Ullah
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : 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
23.12.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 12.09.2025 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Case No.6678 of 2025 (State Vs. Nizam and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.606 of 2024, under Sections 74, 352,
115(2), 126(2), 131, 191(2) BNS, P.S. Tanda, District Rampur, pending in
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, 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 19.02.2026 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
NA528 No. 41227 of 2025
2
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 23.12.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated
12.09.2025 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.6678 of 2025
(State Vs. Nizam and others), arising out of Case Crime No.606 of 2024,
under Sections 74, 352, 115(2), 126(2), 131, 191(2) BNS, P.S. Tanda,
District Rampur, are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
9. 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.
March 19, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…