Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

ASHISH NAGAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

Verification of a compromise under Section 528 CrPC lies with the trial court, and the High Court therefore dismissed the application pending such verification.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. They claimed that the parties had amicably settled the dispute through a compromise dated 21‑01‑2026 and that continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process. The State opposed, contending that the trial court alone must verify the existence and terms of any compromise before any 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 such verification. The Court further indicated that the applicants could approach it again for quashing after the trial court’s verification. Consequently, the application was disposed without being granted.

Issues considered

  • Whether a High Court can quash a summoning order on the ground of a compromise filed by the parties under Section 528 CrPC.
  • Whether verification of a compromise is within the jurisdiction of the trial court and a prerequisite for any quash order.
  • Whether the application under Section 528 CrPC is maintainable in the present circumstances.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Section 528 CrPC
  • compromise verification
  • quash of criminal proceedings
  • abuse of process
  • dowry prohibition
  • IPC 498-A
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9656 of 2026

Ashish Nagar And 2 Others
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Ravi Prakash Yadav, Shashank Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dinesh Yadav, G.A., Rishu Bhartiya

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

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Dinesh Yadav, 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
04.06.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st, Bulandshahr arising out of
Charge-sheet No. 1236 of 2021 dated 09.11.2021 registered as Case No. 626
of 2022 (State Vs. Ashish Nagar) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2021,
Under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr including
the entire proceedings of the said case in terms of the compromise dated
21.01.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes vide compromise dated 21.01.2026, 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. 9656 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

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.