Allahabad High Court
SAGAR KUMAR SAINI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings as the parties had amicably settled the dispute, making further prosecution futile.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 13598/9 of 2024) arising from offences under Sections 115(2) and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was verified on 9 January 2026 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, and no objection was raised by the State or the second opposite party. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre), held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is settled and continuation would be futile. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceeding with respect to the applicants. The application was allowed and the proceedings were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under Sections 115(2) and 351(2) IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether Section 528 CrPC permits the High Court to quash such proceedings when the dispute is settled and continuation would be futile.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(2)
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- criminal law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42435 of 2025
Sagar Kumar Saini And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Danish
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bharat Garg, G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1.Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of applicants is taken on
record.
2. Heard Mohd. Danish, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Bharat Garg,
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
3. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash the entire
proceeding of Case no. 13598/9 of 2024 (State vs. Sagar Kumar Saini and
others) arising out of Case Crime no. 1014 of 2024 under sections 115(2)
and 351(2) BNS, PS-Civil Lines, District Moradabad, charge sheet dated
27.11.2024 and cognizance order dated 17.12.2024 on the basis of
compromise.
4. In compliance of earlier order dated 28.11.2025 passed by co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, compromise verification report has already been
received from learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad and the same
has been preferred today by learned counsel for applicants by way of
supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, wherein it is mentioned
that compromise has been verified on dated 9.1.2026 in presence of both the
parties.
5. Sri Bharat Garg, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned
AGA for the State showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned
counsel for applicants.
NA528 No. 42435 of 2025
2
6. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by
learned counsel for the parties and it has been submitted that there would be
no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the
proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.
7. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble 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 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.
8. 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.
9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire
proceeding of Case no. 13598/9 of 2024 (State vs. Sagar Kumar Saini and
others) arising out of Case Crime no. 1014 of 2024 under sections 115(2)
and 351(2) BNS, PS-Civil Lines, District Moradabad, are hereby quashed,
only in respect of applicants herein.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
March 19, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…