Allahabad High Court
SAMA BEGUM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that the criminal proceedings are to be quashed as the parties have settled the dispute, despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants, Sama Begum and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 2169 of 2016) arising from offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC. The parties had already reached a compromise, which was verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 16‑12‑2025 and was acknowledged by counsel for both sides. The court considered the Supreme Court’s observations in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre (1988) that, even for non‑compoundable offences, a genuine settlement may justify quashing to avoid futility of proceedings. Relying on these precedents and the confirmed settlement, the High Court held that continuing the criminal trial would be unnecessary and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under the IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether Section 528 CrPC permits the court to dismiss the case when a settlement has been reached.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedents cited support the quashing of such proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- criminal procedure
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 47526 of 2025
Sama Begum And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiva Kant Dubey, Surya Prakash Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sunil Kumar Misra
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash entire criminal
proceedings of Case No.2169 of 2016 (State Vs. Sama Begum and others),
arising out of Case Crime No.518 of 2015, under Sections 323, 504, 506,
308 IPC, P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad, pending in the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shikohabad, Firozabad, 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 16.12.2025 which has been appended
with supplementary affidavit, 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
and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
NA528 No. 47526 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,
entire criminal proceedings of Case No.2169 of 2016 (State Vs. Sama
Begum and others), arising out of Case Crime No.518 of 2015, under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad, pending in
the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shikohabad,
Firozabad, 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 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.
February 24, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…