Allahabad High Court

CHATRAPAL SAINI AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 24 March 2026
Bench: NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

Holding

The High Court held that verification of the compromise must be undertaken by the trial court and therefore disposed of the application without quashing the proceedings.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a summons and the entire criminal proceeding (Case No. 949/2023) arising from offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Act. They claimed that the parties had amicably settled the dispute by a compromise dated 15‑09‑2025 and argued that continuation of the trial would be an abuse of process. The State opposed, contending that the trial court must first verify the existence and terms of the compromise before any quash order can be entertained. The High Court, without expressing any view on the merits, directed the 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 application was therefore disposed without granting the relief sought, leaving open the possibility of a later application for quash after verification.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise without verification by the trial court under Section 528 CrPC.
Whether the trial court must first verify the authenticity and fulfillment of the compromise before any order of quash can be entertained.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498-A, 506
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
compromise in criminal cases
quash of proceedings
verification of compromise
domestic violence
IPC 498-A
abuse of process

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9646 of 2026

Chatrapal Saini And 7 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Gupta, Kumar Ashutosh
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Girjesh Kumar Srivastava

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

1. Heard Mr. Akhil Tiwari holding brief of Mr. Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Girjesh Kumar 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 BNSS has been filed with a
prayer to allow this application and quash the summoning order dated
28.04.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal as well as entire
proceeding of Criminal Case No. 949/2023 (State Vs. Chatrapal Saini and
others) arising out in Case Crime No. 102/2022, under Section 498-A, 323,
506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Sambhal pending in
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes vide compromise dated 15.09.2025, 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 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. 9646 of 2026
2

accordance with law.

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.)
March 25, 2026
Aditya Tripathi

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…