Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MUKARRAM @ RINKU AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The High Court declined to quash the proceedings and directed verification of the compromise by the trial court before any further order.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the criminal trial (Session Trial No. 1486 of 2022) arising from offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511, 377 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They claimed that a compromise dated 10‑02‑2025, annexed to the petition, settled the dispute and that continuation of the trial would be an abuse of process. The State opposed, contending that the trial court alone must verify the existence and terms of any compromise and that the High Court should not intervene to quash the proceedings. The High Court, without expressing any view on the merits, directed both parties to appear before the trial court with the certified compromise deed for verification within three weeks and for the trial court to record compliance with the terms before deciding on any quash order. The Court further ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicants pending verification and disposed of the application.

Issues considered

  • Whether an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. can be entertained to quash pending criminal proceedings on the ground of a compromise between parties
  • Whether the High Court can directly quash the trial court proceedings without verification of the compromise by the trial court

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • compromise
  • criminal trial
  • quash of proceedings
  • Section 528
  • verification of compromise
  • abuse of process
  • dowry prohibition
  • IPC offences

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3887 of 2026

Mukarram @ Rinku And 5 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Vijay Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, 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
quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 1486 of 2022 (State Vs.
Mukarram @ Rinku and others), pending before the Additional Sessions
Judge/Fast Track Court, Second, Gautam Budh Nagar, arising out of Case
Crime No. 279 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511, 377
I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dankaur,
District Gautam Buddh Nagar on the basis of the Compromise dated
10.02.2025 executed between the applicants and informant of the present
and signed on 10.03.2025, during the pendency of the present criminal misc.
application before this Hon'ble Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and the
opposite party No. 2 have settled the dispute through compromise dated
10.02.2025, placed as Annexure No. '8' to the present application in a
proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. which is signed on 10.03.2025.
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
                                                                                              NA528 No. 3887 of 2026
                                                                     2

                                    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.

                                    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.

                                    March 30, 2026
                                    Shivani
                                                                                        (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.