Allahabad High Court

BHIKAM SINGH KARDAM AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed under Section 528 CrPC where the parties have reached a genuine compromise and continuation of the trial would be futile.

Summary

The applicants filed a petition under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 5548 of 2026) instituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh against Bhikam Singh Kardam and others for offences under sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 333 and 125(a) of the IPC. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was recorded and verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5 August 2026. The respondents consented to the settlement and jointly requested that the proceedings be dismissed. The Court examined precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka, holding that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is settled and continuation of the trial would be futile. Relying on these authorities, the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding. The application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties
Whether the High Court may entertain a petition to quash pending proceedings when the victim and accused have settled the dispute

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 125(a), 191(2), 333, 351(2), 352

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash criminal proceedings
compromise
non‑compoundable offences
settlement
high court
criminal law
justice

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41682 of 2026

Bhikam Singh Kardam And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shekhar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. On the request of learned counsel for applicants, this matter is being taken
up out of turn considering the urgency.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for State.

3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of
Case No.5548 of 2026 (State vs. Bhikam and Others) arising out of Case
Crime No.52 of 2025, under sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 333,
125(a) BNS, P.S. Kirawali, District- Agra, pending before learned court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Agra, including charge-
sheet dated 31.03.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 03.04.2026.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- 12, Agra on dated
05.08.2026, which has been appended page no.52 of the instant
application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned
AGA.

5. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned AGA and jointly submitted that
there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that
the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.

6. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 58 of the said
judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
NA528 No. 41682 of 2026
2

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 resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor.

7. 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.

8. In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC
37], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed that if the offence is non-
compoundable which is having no serious impact on society then there
would be no harm and error if the proceedings may be quashed in light of
the compromise entered into between the parties.

9. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the
case, the entire proceedings of Case No.5548 of 2026 (State vs. Bhikam and
Others) arising out of Case Crime No.52 of 2025, under sections 191(2),
115(2), 352, 351(2), 333, 125(a) BNS, P.S. Kirawali, District- Agra, pending
before learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5,
Agra, including charge-sheet dated 31.03.2025 and cognizance/summoning
order dated 03.04.2026, are hereby quashed, in respect of applicant(s)
herein.

10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

11. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting
parties. If at all, informant/opposite party no.2 feels that he/she has been
duped or betrayed, then in that event, he/she may file recall application
explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

September 29, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…