Allahabad High Court
SHAHMOON ALIAS MOHAMMAD SHAHMOONversusSTATE 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 relief.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 6073 of 2012) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, on the ground that the parties had amicably settled the dispute through a compromise dated 21‑02‑2026. The opposite party did not contest the existence of the compromise, but the Attorney General argued that verification of the compromise must be done by the trial court. The High Court, without expressing any view on the merits, directed both parties to appear before the trial court with the compromise deed for verification, and ordered that no coercive action be taken pending such verification. The Court further directed that the trial court record statements on fulfillment of the compromise terms and, if satisfied, pass an appropriate order, after which the applicant could approach the High Court again for quashing. The application was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise without verification by the trial court.
- Whether verification of the compromise deed by the trial court is a prerequisite for granting relief under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528
- verification of compromise
- abuse of process
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Indian Penal Code
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17107 of 2026
Shahmoon Alias Mohammad Shahmoon
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Sauood
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ehtesham Afsar Khan, G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Sauood, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Ehtesham Afsar Khan, 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 the application and quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 6073 of
2012, State versus Shahmoon, arising out of Case Crime No. 44 of 2012,
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Bareilly pending in
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in terms compromise dated
21.02.2026.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes vide compromise dated 21.02.2026, which has been
placed as Annexure No. '3' to the present 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 counsel for the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant or 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 applicant may approach the concerned Court and moves an application
NA528 No. 17107 of 2026
2
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 applicant 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 applicant in the
aforesaid case.
9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.
May 5, 2026
Shivani Sri.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…