Allahabad High Court

HAMDAAN @ MOHD HANDAAN AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 26 April 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings on the ground of a verified compromise between the parties.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S. seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 17‑12‑2024, the cognizance order dated 20‑12‑2024, and the entire Session Trial No.433 of 2025 relating to offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 351, 351(3) and 352 of the B.N.S. The parties had already reached a compromise, which was verified by the Additional District and Sessions Judge on 07‑04‑2026 and was acknowledged by both sides. The court considered precedents that allow quashing of criminal proceedings where a genuine settlement exists, even if the offences are non‑compoundable, to avoid futility and serve the ends of justice. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre, the High Court held that the circumstances warranted termination of the case. Consequently, the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and all proceedings were quashed and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 528 of the B.N.S. when the parties have reached a compromise, even if the offences are non‑compoundable?
Does the court have inherent power to terminate proceedings to avoid futility and serve justice?
Whether the compromise, verified by the trial court, is sufficient ground for quashing the charge‑sheet and cognizance order?

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351, 351(3), 352, 528

Subjects

compromise
quash criminal proceedings
non‑compoundable offences
Section 528
criminal procedure
settlement
justice

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9666 of 2026

Hamdaan @ Mohd Handaan And 6 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anubhav Sinha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Bahadur Singh

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
17.12.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 20.12.2024 and the entire
proceedings of Session Trial No.433 of 2025 (State Vs. Rauf @ Babbal
and others) arising out of Case Crime No.161 of 2024, under Sections
191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 351, 351(3), 352 of BNS, Police Station
Falavda, District Meerut, pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (JD) Court No.3, Meerut.

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 District and Session Judge, Court No.19,
Meerut on dated 07.04.2026, which has been appended with ordersheet,
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
NA528 No. 9666 of 2026
2

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 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 17.12.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated
20.12.2024 and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.433 of 2025
(State Vs. Rauf @ Babbal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.161
of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 351, 351(3), 352 of
BNS, Police Station Falavda, District Meerut, pending in the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (JD) Court No.3,
Meerut, 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.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
April 27, 2026
Ashish/-

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…