Allahabad High Court

VARIS ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 14 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 quashment can be granted.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a criminal case (State v. Varis and others) involving offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the ground that the parties had reached a compromise dated 16‑01‑2026. The High Court noted that verification of a compromise is within the jurisdiction of the trial court and cannot be presumed by the appellate court. Consequently, the Court directed both parties to appear before the trial court with the compromise deed for verification, after which the trial court may pass an appropriate order, including possible quashment. The High Court refrained from expressing any view on the merits and ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicants pending verification. The application was therefore disposed, with a direction to approach the High Court again after the trial court’s verification if quashment is still sought.

Issues considered

Can a criminal proceeding under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act be quashed on the basis of a compromise under Section 528 CrPC?
Is verification of the compromise deed a mandatory prerequisite before any order of quashment can be entertained?
Does the High Court have the authority to quash the proceedings without the trial court’s verification of the compromise?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
compromise deed
quash of criminal proceedings
Dowry Prohibition Act
IPC offences
trial court verification
abuse of process

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51021 of 2025

Varis Ali
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawankumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar

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

1. Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Sambhav Saroj holding brief of Mr. Rajesh Kumar, 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 BNSS has been filed with a
prayer to be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 831
of 2025 (State v. Varis and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2021,
under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station-Allahganj, District-Shahjahanpur pending in the Court of learned
Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 31, Shahjahanpur in pursuance of
compromise dated 16.01.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes vide compromise dated 16.01.2026, which has been
placed as "Annexure No.-5A" to the amendment application dated
13.02.2026. 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 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.
NA528 No. 51021 of 2025
2

5. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the applicants and opposite party No. 2 are directed to appear 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.)
May 15, 2026
Aditya Tripathi

Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…