1. Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on compromise in a case involving multiple IPC offences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 1250
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Gautam Chowdhary, J
Chhatrapal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40231 of 2022
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hare Krishna Tripathi
For the Respondents: G.A., Yogesh Kumar Tiwari
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hare Krishna Tripathi
For the Respondents: G.A., Yogesh Kumar Tiwari
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties to secure the ends of justice, particularly in non-heinous cases where the possibility of conviction is bleak and continuation would be an abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Compromise between parties - High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings where disputes are resolved amicably, provided the offence is not heinous or serious in nature (e.g., murder or rape) and continuation of the trial would be an abuse of the process of law. (Para 7)
(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - Distinction from Compounding - The power to quash proceedings under inherent jurisdiction is distinct from the power to compound offences under Section 320 of the Code, aimed at securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of court process. (Para 7)
(C) Judicial Pragmatism - Case Pendency - In cases where the primary witness intends to turn hostile due to a settlement, the court may adopt a pragmatic approach to quash proceedings to avoid wasting judicial time and facilitate the trial of genuine litigants. (Para 9, 12)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed based on a compromise entered into between the applicant and the informant.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Applicant seeks quashing due to compromise; State and informant have no objection to the quashing of proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Trial would be a waste of time as the key witness has turned hostile, and conviction is bleak. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. High Court can quash criminal proceedings arising from private disputes upon genuine compromise to secure the ends of justice. (Para 7 , 13 )
5. Proceedings quashed subject to payment of Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. 2,000 each) to the High Court Legal Services Committee. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings under its inherent powers after a compromise between parties?
Yes, the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice, even for non-compoundable offences, if the dispute is predominantly private in nature and the parties have genuinely settled. (Para 7 , 8 , 13 )
7. What factors are considered by the High Court before quashing proceedings based on a compromise?
The court considers if the offence is heinous or serious, whether it impacts society, and if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It must ensure that continuing the case would cause oppression and injustice. (Para 7 , 9 )
8. Can the court impose costs as a condition for quashing proceedings?
Yes, the court can impose costs to discourage misuse of the judicial process and to remind litigants of the consequences of their actions. The costs are often directed to be deposited with the Legal Services Committee. (Para 14 , 15 )
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for
the State, learned counsel for the first informant and perused
the material on record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for
quashing the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 148 of
2019 (State Vs. Chhatrapal) arising out of Case Crime No.55 of
2019 under Sections 420, 494, 354-Gha, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C.,
pending before leanred Additional District Judge-9th, District
Jhansi pursuant to the compromise entered into between the
parties.
3. Vide order dated 13.03.2023, the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had referred the matter before the concerned trial below
for verification of the compromise entered into between the
parties. The learned trial Court vide its report dated
31.03.2023 has reported that the matter has been compromised
between the parties. copy of which report is on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR had
come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some
misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With
passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences
and have settled their dispute amicably in writing, which has
also been verified by the learned trial Court. They realise that
there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that
no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant
do not dispute the correctness of the submission made by
learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the
A482 No. 40231 of 2022
2
documents relied upon by him. He submits that he has no
objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
6. It is contended that in view of the said compromise, the
pending proceedings before the court below be quashed in the
light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi v.
State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , 2012(10) SCC 303.
7. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held
that in case the dispute has come to an end, under a
compromise/settlement, between the parties, then
notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC
there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the
proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent
powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in
para-61 that;
"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section
320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of
justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or
complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and
victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even
though the victim or victim's family and the offender have
settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and
have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour
stand on different footing for the purposes of qu
