Allahabad High Court
KALPIT PRAJAPATI @ KALPIT KUMAR PRAJAPATI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- NAND PRABHA SHUKLA
Holding
The High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings and ordered verification of the compromise by the trial court before any further relief.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 58255/2018) arising from offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They asserted that the dispute had been amicably settled by a compromise dated 28‑04‑2026 and submitted the compromise deed. The opposite party did not contest the existence of the compromise, while the Advocate General argued that verification of the compromise is the jurisdiction of the trial court. The High Court, without deciding on the merits, directed both 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 after verification the parties may approach the High Court again for quashing the proceedings. The application was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed on the basis of an out‑of‑court compromise under Section 528 BNSS.
- 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 — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 506
Subjects
- criminal compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 BNSS
- verification of compromise
- trial court jurisdiction
- IPC offences
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- abuse of process
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13842 of 2026
Kalpit Prajapati @ Kalpit Kumar Prajapati And 3
Others .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neetu Mishra, Sanskar Gaur
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Hari Shankar Chaurasia, Satanand
Mishra, G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanskar Gaur as well as Ms. Neetu Mishra, learned counsel
for the applicants, Sri Satanand Mishra, 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 B.N.S.S. has been filed to
allow this application and to quash the entire proceeding of Case
No.58255/2018, CNR No. UPKN 040583382018 (State Vs. Kalpit
Prajapati and others), as well as Charge-Sheet dated 14/03/2018 as
Charge Sheet No.01 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.0681 of 2017,
under Sections 498(A), 323 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police
Station-Barra, District-Kanpur Nagar as well as cognizance order dated
23/10/2018 pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division), FTC, Kanpur Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have
amicably settled their disputes through compromise dated 28.04.2026
which has been placed as Annexure No. SA-2 to the supplementary
affidavit dated 04.05.2026. 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 counsel for the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or
NA528 No. 13842 of 2026
2
correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
5. 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.
6. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, both the parties are directed to appear in person 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.
7. 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.
8. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the Court
concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the
aforesaid case.
9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
May 7, 2026
Puspendra
Digitally signed by :-
PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…