Aslam Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ...
- Neutral2026:AHC-LKO:32570
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a criminal proceeding is sought to be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties, the court shall refer the compromise deed to the trial court for verification. The trial court must call all parties to the compromise before it and verify the deed in their personal presence. If verified, the trial court shall prepare a report to that effect and make the compromise part of the record, and the parties may then obtain certified copies of the report and compromise deed to support a fresh application for quashing of proceedings. Where a compromise is filed in a criminal case, the court shall issue notices to all signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence before proceeding to verify it, and shall examine whether all parties against whom the chargesheet was filed are parties to the compromise, sending a report along with the verification order. During the pendency of verification of a compromise deed by the trial court, the criminal proceedings may be stayed for a period of three months so far as the applicant is concerned.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Yugal Kishor Tripathi, Advocate, on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
Instant application has been filed with prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of the Session Trial No.919/2023 State Vs. Aslam Ali, arising out of Case Crime No. 48/2023, Under section-376, 506 IPC and section 3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha), 3 (1) (b), 3 (2) (v), 3 (2) (va) SC/ST Act P.S. Antu, District-Pratapgarh, Pending in the court of and Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh impugned charge sheet no. 22/2023, dated 29.04.2023, on the ground that the parties have already settled their dispute by the way of compromise.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present matter. He submitted that due to certain misconceptions, the first information report was lodged by both parties against each other with the same allegations and both the parties sat together and have settled their dispute. He submitted that the applicant and the alleged victim are married and are enjoying marital life and if the alleged victim is called upon in the witness box, she will face the trauma again. He submitted that no fruitful purpose would be sub-served in allowing the criminal proceedings against the applicant, therefore, criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the version of counsel for the applicant. He submitted that the first information report lodged by the father of the applicant and the criminal proceedings arising out of the same, have already been quashed in application under section 482 no. 6971 of 2025. He submitted that all the proceedings above may also be quashed against the applicant, as the parties have settled their disputes and the victim does not want to further go into the witness box as she will face the trauma again.
Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it transpires that the applicant and the alleged victim are married and the alleged victim does not intend to go into the witness box again. The case of the present applicant seems to be covered by the ratio of the judgement rendered in the case of Madhukar and others versus state of Maharashtra and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415.
In view of the above, the matter is referred to the trial court for verification of the compromise deed dated 22/04/2026 appended herein as annexure no. 11.
The trial court is directed to verify the compromise deed dated 22.04.2026 immediately after calling the parties and verifying the same.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.
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 applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Session Trial No.919/2023 State Vs. Aslam Ali, arising out of Case Crime No. 48/2023, Under section-376, 506 IPC and section 3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha), 3 (1) (b), 3 (2) (v), 3 (2) (va) SC/ST Act P.S. Antu, District-Pratapgarh, , shall remain stayed so far as applicant is concerned.
The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.
Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicant, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
May 6, 2026
Mayank
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free