Allahabad High Court
MUKESH BHATI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that a genuine compromise between the parties justifies dismissal of the case even though the offences are non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet and subsequent criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 319 of 2010) relating to offences under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the compromise was verified by the trial court on 13.01.2026 and acknowledged by the learned Additional Government Advocate. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists, the High Court held that continuation of the proceedings would be futile. Consequently, the chargesheet dated 26.01.2010, the cognizance order dated 01.02.2010, and the entire criminal case were quashed. The application was allowed, with a proviso that any aggrieved opposite party may file a recall application.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences (IPC §§307, 504, 506) can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to quash the chargesheet and cognizance order in view of the settlement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41350 of 2025
Mukesh Bhati And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Tripathi, Ashok Kumar
Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vibhendu Mishra
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
26.01.2010 and cognizance/summoning order dated 01.02.2010 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.319 of 2010 (State Vs.
Mukesh Bhati and others), arising out of Case Crime No.605 of 2009, under
Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar,
pending in the court of learned F.T.C.-First, Gautam Budh Nagar, 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 13.01.2026 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. 41350 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 26.01.2010 and cognizance/summoning order dated
01.02.2010 along with entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.319
of 2010 (State Vs. Mukesh Bhati and others), arising out of Case Crime
No.605 of 2009, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Dadri, District
Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of learned F.T.C.-First, Gautam
Budh Nagar, are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
9. If at all, opposite party nos.2 and 3 feel that they have been duped or
betrayed, then in that event, they 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…