Allahabad High Court
MOHD. ANEES AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the chargesheet and cognizance order, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings despite a verified compromise would be futile even though the offences are non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed a petition under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash a chargesheet and cognizance order in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 325 and 308 IPC. The parties had reached a compromise, which was verified by the Additional Civil Judge on 10‑02‑2026 and acknowledged by the opposing party. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre), the Court held that even non‑compoundable offences may be dismissed where a genuine settlement renders further prosecution futile. Consequently, the High Court quashed the chargesheet and the cognizance order and allowed the application. The order also invited the second opposite party to file a recall application if he felt aggrieved.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a verified compromise between the parties.
- Whether the existence of a genuine settlement justifies the dismissal of pending criminal charges despite the nature of the offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 308, 323, 325, 427, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42227 of 2025
Mohd. Anees And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
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
13.07.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.08.2021 passed in
Case No.110887 of 2021 (State Vs. Mohd. Anees and others), arising out of
Case Crime No.215 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452,
427, 325, 308 IPC, P.S. Gagaha, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of
learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)-4, Gorakhpur, 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 10.02.2026 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. 42227 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 13.07.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated
26.08.2021 passed in Case No.110887 of 2021 (State Vs. Mohd. Anees and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.215 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148,
323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 325, 308 IPC, P.S. Gagaha, District Gorakhpur,
pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)-4, Gorakhpur,
are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
9. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then
in that event, he 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…