Allahabad High Court
SANOVAR KHAN AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP 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 order.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 498‑A, 354, 323 IPC, the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, on the ground that the parties had amicably settled the dispute by a compromise dated 23‑12‑2025. The opposite party did not contest the existence of the compromise, but the Attorney General argued that the trial court must verify the compromise before any quash order can be passed. The High Court, without expressing any view on the merits, directed the parties to appear before the trial court with the certified compromise deed for verification and ordered that no coercive action be taken pending verification. The Court further directed that the trial court record statements on compliance with the compromise and, if satisfied, may pass an appropriate order, after which the applicants could approach the High Court again for quash. The application was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether the High Court can entertain an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. without verification of the compromise by the trial court.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354, 498-A
- Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- compromise deed
- quash of charge sheet
- Section 528
- IPC 498-A
- IPC 354
- IPC 323
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Muslim Women Protection Act
- verification of compromise
- abuse of process
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9642 of 2026
Sanovar Khan And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Bharti
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rahul Kumar
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Rahul 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 B.N.S.S. has been filed to
allow the instant application and quash the entire proceeding of the
impugned charge sheet dated 04.03.2020 as well as cognizance order dated
30.11.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in Case
Crime No. 1338 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 354, 323 I.P.C. & Section
3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3/4 (Muslim women protection of Marriage Right)
Act, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun against the applicant No.4
and Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act & Section 3/4 Muslim
Women (the Protection of Right on Marriage), against the applicant Nos. 1,
2 & 3, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaluan at Orai in Case
No. 3185 of 2020 (State Vs. Sanovar Khan and others) and to stay the
further proceeding of the aforesaid case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes vide compromise dated 23.12.2025, which has been
placed as Annexure No. '5' 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 applicants or
NA528 No. 9642 of 2026
2
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 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 25, 2026
Shivani
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…