Allahabad High Court
ASRAF ALI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- NAND PRABHA SHUKLA
Holding
The High Court declined to quash the charge‑sheet and cognizance order, directing verification of the compromise by the trial court and disposing of the application.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Act seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 23‑08‑2021 and a cognizance order dated 27‑10‑2021 in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the ground that they had amicably settled the dispute by a compromise dated 07‑02‑2025. The State contended that verification of the compromise is within the jurisdiction of the trial court and that the High Court should not intervene without such verification. The High Court, without expressing any opinion 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 against the applicants pending that verification. The Court further directed that the trial court record statements on whether the terms of the compromise have been fulfilled and may thereafter pass an appropriate order, including quashing the proceedings if warranted. Accordingly, the application was disposed of, leaving the matter to be decided by the trial court after verification of the compromise.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Act can be entertained to quash a charge‑sheet and cognizance order on the basis of a private compromise between the parties.
- Whether verification of the compromise is within the jurisdiction of the trial court and whether the High Court can stay coercive action pending such verification.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. Act — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498-A, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash charge sheet
- Section 528
- criminal procedure
- verification of compromise
- abuse of process
- High Court
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16572 of 2026
Asraf Ali And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Zulekha Begum
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Ms. Zulekha Begum, learned counsel for the applicants, 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 impugned charge sheet
dated 23.08.2021 as well as Cognizance/Summoning order dated
27.10.2021 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) (F.T.C.) Offences Against
women, District Meerut on the basis of Compromise in Case
No.18084/2021 (State Vs. Asraf) arising out of Case Crime No. 151 of
2019 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, I.P.C., & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police
Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut against the applicants, pending
before Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6,
District Meerut.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and
opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their disputes through
compromise dated 07.02.2025 which has been placed as Annexure No.
"4" 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
NA528 No. 16572 of 2026
2
decided in accordance with law.
5. 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.
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.)
April 23, 2026
Puspendra
Digitally signed by :-
PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…