Allahabad High Court

HARIOM AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 26 April 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court held that, notwithstanding the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 CrPC where a genuine compromise between the parties has been established.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and proceedings in a case involving offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, alleging that the parties had reached an amicable compromise verified by the magistrate. Both sides admitted the settlement and urged the court to dismiss the criminal action. The High Court referred to Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre) which allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists and continuation of the trial would be futile. Considering the verified compromise and the guiding principle of justice, the court held that the proceedings could be set aside. Consequently, the application was allowed and the entire criminal proceeding was quashed.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under IPC 147, 148, 149 and 307 can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash such proceedings despite the offences not being compoundable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307

Subjects

compromise
quash criminal proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528 CrPC
IPC 147
IPC 148
IPC 149
IPC 307
settlement
justice

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9293 of 2026

Hariom And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : M.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Tarunesh Kumar Srivastava

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated
14.01.2021 & 31.01.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 20.07.2021
and the entire proceedings of Case No.871 of 2021 (State vs. Mukut Singh
and others) arising out of Case Crime No.307 of 2020, under sections 147,
148, 149, 307 IPC, P.S. Dadon, District- Aligarh, pending in the court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Aligarh.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that
compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Aligarh on
dated 17.04.2026, which has been appended with the records, this fact has
also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite parties.

4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise
has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and
jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the
interest of justice that 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 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
NA528 No. 9293 of 2026
2

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.

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, charge-sheet dated 14.01.2021 & 31.01.2021, cognizance/summoning
order dated 20.07.2021 and the entire proceedings of Case No.871 of 2021
(State vs. Mukut Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.307 of
2020, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, P.S. Dadon, District- Aligarh,
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.1, Aligarh, 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, informant/opposite party no.2 feels that he/she has been
duped or betrayed, then in that event, he/she may file recall application
explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

April 27, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…