Allahabad High Court

RAJESH JAIN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 14 May 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the amicable compromise rendered continuation of the case futile despite the offences being non‑compoundable.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings (Case No. 3261 of 2017) relating to offences under Sections 147, 354, 354A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, a compromise was recorded and verified by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21‑04‑2026. The court noted Supreme Court authority that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where continuation would be futile and justice demands settlement. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre, the High Court held that the proceedings should be terminated. Consequently, the chargesheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal case were quashed and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the High Court can exercise its power under Section 528 CrPC to quash the pending case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 354, 354A, 504, 506

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
compromise settlement
non‑compoundable offences
IPC offences
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45006 of 2025

Rajesh Jain And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Bajpai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajesh Kumar Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
06.06.2017 and cognizance/summoning order dated 12.10.2017 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3261 of 2017 (State Vs. Rajesh Jain
and others), arising out of Case Crime No.120 of 2017, under Sections 147,
354, 354(A), 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Chowk, District Varanasi, pending in
the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, 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 21.04.2026 which has been appended
with this petition, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by
learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties 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
NA528 No. 45006 of 2025
2

and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
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 06.06.2017 and cognizance/summoning order dated
12.10.2017 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3261 of 2017
(State Vs. Rajesh Jain and others), arising out of Case Crime No.120 of
2017, under Sections 147, 354, 354(A), 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Chowk,
District Varanasi, pending in the court of learned Special Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Varanasi, are hereby quashed.

8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting
parties. 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.

May 15, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…