Allahabad High Court

PARAS @ ANKUR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 24 March 2026
Bench: NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

Holding

The High Court held that the compromise must first be verified by the trial court before any order of quash can be entertained.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS Act seeking to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a criminal case arising from alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 313, 323, 324, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the ground that the parties had reached a compromise dated 17‑02‑2026. The State opposed, contending that the trial court must first verify the authenticity 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 compromise deed for verification and to record statements on compliance with its terms. The Court further ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicants pending verification and that the application be disposed of, leaving open the possibility of a later application for quash after verification. The order emphasizes procedural compliance over immediate dismissal of the criminal proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can be the basis for quashing a criminal charge sheet and cognizance order under Section 528 of the BNSS Act.
Whether the High Court can directly quash the proceedings or must refer the matter to the trial court for verification of the compromise.

Legislation cited

BNSS Act — s. 528
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 323, 324, 498, 506

Subjects

compromise
quash of charge sheet
Section 528
criminal procedure
verification of compromise
abuse of process

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11468 of 2026

Paras @ Ankur And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kalpita Yadav, Vishvanath Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar, G.A.

Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vishvanath Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms.
Shweta Sharma, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Amit Kumar, learned
counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and 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 impugned charge sheet No.
216 of 2024 dated 19.06.2024 and 216A of 2024 dated 23.05.2025 as well as
cognizance order dated 05.07.2025 in Session Trial No. 2248 of 2025 (State
versus Paras @ Ankur and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 291 of
2024 under Sections 498-A, 313, 323, 324, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act against
applicant no. 1 and under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 506 I.P.C. & Section
3/4 D.P. Act, against applicant nos, 2 & 3 at Police Station-Najibabad,
District-Bijnor pending in the court of learned Additional District & Session
Judge/F.T.C. 1st Bijnor on the basis of compromise dated 17.02.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes vide compromise dated 17.02.2026, which has been
placed as "Annexure No.-2" to the application. 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
NA528 No. 11468 of 2026
2

with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in
accordance with law.

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.

March 25, 2026
SY
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SWETA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…