Allahabad High Court

RUPESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 3 May 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the verified compromise rendered continuation of the case futile despite the offences being non‑compoundable.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 13-10-2024 and the cognizance order dated 30-01-2025 in State v. Rupesh, which involved offences under Sections 110 and 352 of the IPC. The parties had already reached a compromise, which was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 06-04-2026 and was acknowledged by both sides. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre) that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists, the High Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be futile. Consequently, the court quashed the chargesheet and the entire criminal proceeding. The application was allowed, and the parties were advised that any aggrieved party could file a recall application.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC.
Whether the verified compromise is sufficient to justify the quashing of the chargesheet and cognizance order.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 110, 352

Subjects

compromise
quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528 CrPC
non‑compoundable offences
settlement
justice
futility

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9751 of 2026

Rupesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Avadhesh Vishwakarma, G.A., Suryank
Tripathi

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

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for opposite party
nos.2 to 4 as well as learned AGA.

2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated
13.10.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 30.01.2025 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Case No.841 of 2025 (State Vs. Rupesh),
arising out of Case Crime No.283 of 2024, under Sections 110, 352 BNS,
P.S. Sambhal, District Sambhal, pending in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi, 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 06.04.2026 which has been appended
with supplementary affidavit, this fact has also been ascertained and
seconded by learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4.

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. 9751 of 2026
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,
chargesheet dated 13.10.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated
30.01.2025 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.841 of 2025
(State Vs. Rupesh), arising out of Case Crime No.283 of 2024, under
Sections 110, 352 BNS, P.S. Sambhal, District Sambhal, pending in the
court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi, 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 nos. 2 to 4 feel that they have been duped or
betrayed, then in that event, they may seek recall of this order by way of
filing recall application explaining the reasons.

May 4, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…