Allahabad High Court

ANKUR BANERJEEversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

Holding

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

Summary

The applicant, Ankur Banerjee, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 871/2022) arising from allegations under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act, on the ground that the parties had reached a compromise dated 15‑12‑2025. The opposite party did not dispute the existence of the compromise, but the Attorney General argued that the trial court alone must verify the validity of the settlement before any quash order can be issued. 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 to obtain a certified copy of the order. The court ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicant until the compromise is verified and left open the possibility of a later application for quashing the proceedings. The application was consequently disposed of pending verification by the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed on the basis of a compromise/deed of settlement between the parties.
Whether the High Court can entertain a quash application without the trial court first verifying the compromise.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 498A, 504

Subjects

compromise deed
quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528
verification of settlement
abuse of process
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18892 of 2026

Ankur Banerjee
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shreesh Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri Aman Srivastava, 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 seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Quash the charge sheet dated 01.12.2021 as well as
cognizance order dated 28.01.2022 in criminal proceeding of
Criminal Case No.871/2022, arising out of Case Crime No.134
of 2021 (State Vs. Ankur Banerjee) under sections 498A, 323,
504, 406 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila
Thana, District-Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) /F.T.C.-I Gautam Budh
Nagar, in view of the compromise / settlement (M.O.U.) dated
15.12.2025.

(ii) Quash the criminal proceeding of Criminal Case
No.871/2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 134 of 2021 (State
Vs. Ankur Banerjee) under sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 I.P.C.
& Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-
Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division) /F.T.C.-I, Gautam Budh Nagar."

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties
NA528 No. 18892 of 2026
2

have amicably settled their disputes through compromise dated
15.12.2025 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 counsel for the opposite party No. 2 does not
dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the applicants 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 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
NA528 No. 18892 of 2026
3

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.

May 7, 2026
Puspendra

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…