Allahabad High Court
OMPAL SAINI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- NAND PRABHA SHUKLA
Holding
The High Court held that the matter must be referred to the trial court for verification of the compromise before any order of quashal can be entertained.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 926 of 2016) arising from offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the ground that the parties had settled the dispute by a settlement agreement dated 09‑08‑2023. The State opposed, contending that the trial court must first verify the existence and validity of the compromise before any quashal can be ordered. 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 to record statements on compliance with its terms. The court further directed that no coercive action be taken against the applicants until the verification is completed and that the parties may approach the High Court again for quashing after verification. The application was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed on the basis of a settlement agreement under Section 528 B.N.S.S.?
- Whether the trial court must verify the compromise before the High Court can order quashal of the case?
- What procedural steps are required for verification of a compromise in criminal matters?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498-A, 504
Subjects
- settlement agreement
- compromise verification
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 B.N.S.S.
- dowry prohibition
- criminal law procedure
- court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11814 of 2026
Ompal Saini And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants and
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a
prayer to allow this application and quash the entire criminal proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 926 of 2016 (Sonu versus State and Others) arising out
of Case Crime No. 313 of 2001 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Nai Mandi, District-Muzaffar
Nagaron pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar on the basis of settlement
agreement dated 09.08.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes vide settlement agreement dated 09.08.2023, which has
been placed as "Annexure No.-3" 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
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
NA528 No. 11814 of 2026
2
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
Checking your session…