Richa And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ...
- Neutral2026:AHC-LKO:32993
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where parties to criminal proceedings claim to have executed a compromise, the trial court must verify such compromise by issuing notice to all signatories, requiring their personal presence, and examining the document in their presence before accepting it as part of the record; the mere filing of a compromise deed is insufficient without such judicial verification. A trial court considering a compromise in criminal proceedings must prepare a verification report confirming that all parties named in the chargesheet were present during the verification process, and this report must accompany any order accepting the compromise. Where a High Court is moved to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of an alleged compromise that has not yet been judicially verified, the appropriate course is to stay the proceedings for a limited period to permit the parties to place the compromise before the trial court for verification, rather than to decide the quashing petition in the absence of such verification.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Arti Yadav, Satyam Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Mr. Salik Ram Tiwari,Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Salik Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 102 of 2024, State Vs Saurabh & others" arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2024 lodged under Section 323,504,506,427 of I.P.C., Police Station-Patti, District-Pratapgarh, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 24, Pratapgarh, including the chargesheet No. 116 of 2024 dated 24.4.2024 and summoning order dated 10.9.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No. 24, Pratapgarh.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that due to some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 16-03-2026, which has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to the instant application. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicants are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicants and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicants and the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.
Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.
Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the trial court as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.
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 applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Criminal Case No. 102 of 2024, State Vs Saurabh & others" arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2024 lodged under Section 323,504,506,427 of I.P.C., Police Station-Patti, District-Pratapgarh, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 24, Pratapgarh, including the chargesheet No. 116 of 2024 dated 24.4.2024 and summoning order dated 10.9.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No. 24, Pratapgarh shall remain stayed so far as present applicants are concerned.
The trial court is further directed for ensuring the fact that all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed are present before the trial court and a report with respect to this effect shall also be sent alongwith verification order.
Office is directed to return the copy of original compromise deed to learned counsel for the applicants within a week.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
May 7, 2026
AKS
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