Kalpit Prajapati @ Kalpit Kumar ... vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2026:AHC:105946
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where parties to criminal proceedings have executed a compromise deed, the trial court—not the High Court—has jurisdiction to verify whether the parties have genuinely compromised and to record their statements as to whether all terms and conditions of the compromise have been fulfilled, after which the High Court may consider an application to quash the proceedings. A High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. may direct the trial court to verify a compromise between parties in criminal proceedings and, pending such verification, shall stay coercive action against the applicants, with liberty to the applicants to approach the High Court again for quashing of proceedings after the trial court has verified the compromise and recorded the parties' statements on performance of its terms.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard Sri Sanskar Gaur as well as Ms. Neetu Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satanand Mishra, 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 this application and to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.58255/2018, CNR No. UPKN 040583382018 (State Vs. Kalpit Prajapati and others), as well as Charge-Sheet dated 14/03/2018 as Charge Sheet No.01 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.0681 of 2017, under Sections 498(A), 323 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Barra, District-Kanpur Nagar as well as cognizance order dated 23/10/2018 pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC, Kanpur Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their disputes through compromise dated 28.04.2026 which has been placed as Annexure No. SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.05.2026. 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 counsel for the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or 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.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
May 7, 2026
Puspendra
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