Allahabad High Court
CHANDO AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- NAND PRABHA SHUKLA
Holding
The High Court declined to quash the proceedings and directed verification of the compromise by the trial court before any further order.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Complaint No. 6908200 of 2018) arising under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They claimed that the parties had amicably settled the dispute by a compromise dated 12‑08‑2025 and argued that continuation of the case would be an abuse of process. The State opposed, contending that the trial court must first verify the existence and terms of the compromise before any quash order can be entertained. The High Court, without expressing any view on the merits, directed the parties to appear before the trial court with the certified compromise deed for verification and ordered that no coercive action be taken pending that verification. The Court further indicated that the applicants could approach it again after the trial court’s verification for a possible quash order. The application was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings on the ground of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether the trial court must first verify the existence and terms of the compromise before the High Court can entertain a quash application.
- Whether the continuation of the criminal case constitutes an abuse of process of law.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise deed
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 482 CrPC
- abuse of process
- verification of compromise
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31202 of 2019
Chando And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurudh Kumar Prajapati, Vinay
Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhawesh Pratap Singh, G.A., Umesh
Kumar
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants,
Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a
prayer to allow this application and quash the summoning order dated
26.04.2019 with entire criminal proceeding of the Complaint Case No.
6908200 of 2018 (Smt. Farzana v. Chando and Others) summoned under
Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with under Section 3/4 D.P. Act,
Police Sthation-Shahganj, District-Agra.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes vide compromise dated 12.08.2025, which has been
placed as "Annexure No.-SA-1" to the supplementary affidavit. Therefore,
no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the
Court concerned and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court
but also abuse of process of law.
4. Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the Trial Court, which has to
verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence
the applicants may approach the concerned Court and move an application
with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in
accordance with law.
A482 No. 31202 of 2019
2
5. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the applicants and opposite party No. 2 are directed to appear before
the Trial Court along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this
order within three weeks from today. It is expected that Court concerned
may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the
presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after giving opportunity
of hearing to both the parties, preferably within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no
other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise,
the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to
whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise
deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not.
6. The Court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of
the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to
approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
7. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the Court
concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the
aforesaid case.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
May 12, 2026
Aditya Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…