Allahabad High Court
RAMA KANT MISRA AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that the criminal proceedings may be quashed on account of a genuine compromise between the parties, even though the offences are non‑compoundable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 25‑09‑2013 and the cognizance order dated 12‑03‑2014 in Criminal Case No.126 of 2014, which involved offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC. Both parties admitted that a genuine compromise had been reached and the compromise was verified by the trial court on 18‑03‑2026. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents—Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Madhavrao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre (1988)—which allow quashing of criminal proceedings even for non‑compoundable offences when the dispute is settled, to avoid futility and promote justice. Relying on these authorities, the Court held that continuation of the proceedings would be unnecessary and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the chargesheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding were quashed, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences be quashed on the ground of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC?
- Do the Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre permit such quashing despite the nature of the offences?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 427, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- justice
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8199 of 2026
Rama Kant Misra And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : O.P. Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kamlesh Kumar Singh
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
25.09.2013 and cognizance/summoning order dated 12.03.2014 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.126 of 2014 (State Vs.
Rama Kant Misra and others), arising out of Case Crime No.290 of 2013,
under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. George Town, District
Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Room No.9, Allahabad, 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 18.03.2026 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. 8199 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,
chargesheet dated 25.09.2013 and cognizance/summoning order dated
12.03.2014 along with entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.126
of 2014 (State Vs. Rama Kant Misra and others), arising out of Case Crime
No.290 of 2013, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. George
Town, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Room No.9, Allahabad, 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…