Allahabad High Court
KAMESH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the chargesheet, cognizance order and the pending criminal proceedings because the parties had amicably settled the dispute, despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 25‑10‑2019, the cognizance and summoning order dated 04‑12‑2019, and the entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.702 of 2022 relating to offences under Sections 452, 323, 504, 324, 506 and 308 IPC. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was verified by the trial court on 02‑04‑2026 and was admitted by counsel for the opposite party. Relying on Supreme Court judgments in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre (1988), the High Court held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where continuation of the trial would be futile and justice demands an end to the dispute. Consequently, the chargesheet, cognizance order and the pending criminal proceedings were quashed. The application was allowed, and the court warned that the opposite party could file a recall application if aggrieved.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the ground of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC?
- Does the Supreme Court precedent allowing quash of proceedings to avoid futility and promote justice apply to the present case?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to quash the chargesheet, cognizance order and the pending trial?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- Supreme Court precedent
- justice
- futility of trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7994 of 2026
Kamesh And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Chandra, Surya Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Harishchandra Yadav, Suyash
Mehrotra
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 as well as learned AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
25.10.2019 and cognizance/summoning order dated 04.12.2019 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.702 of 2022 (State Vs.
Kamesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.319 of 2019, under
Sections 452, 323, 504, 324, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Bahjoi, District Sambhal,
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandausi, Sambhal, 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 02.04.2026 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
NA528 No. 7994 of 2026
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,
cchargesheet dated 25.10.2019 and cognizance/summoning order dated
04.12.2019 along with entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.702
of 2022 (State Vs. Kamesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.319 of
2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 324, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Bahjoi, District
Sambhal, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandausi, Sambhal, 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.
April 20, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…