Case Name: Naushey Ali and Ors. V. State of U.P & Anr.
Case Number: Application u/s 482 No. – 7826 of 2024
Date: February 11, 2025
Quorum: Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice SVN Bhatti
FACTS OF THE CASE
The applicants submitted an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case which was initiated from Case under Sections 420, 323, and 506 IPC at Police Station Milak Khanam, Rampur.
ISSUES
1 The compromise deed is valid and can be a ground for quashing?
- Whether the trial court is bound to verify the compromise?
- Whether the proceedings under Sections 420,323 and 506 IPC should be proceeded with in spite of the settlement?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 482 Cr.P.C. Inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
- Section 420 IPC – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Section 323 IPC – Voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 506 IPC – Criminal intimidation.
ARGUMENTS
Applicants’ Arguments
The parties have settled the matter amicably, and the trial proceedings would be abuse of the process and wastage of judicial time. The respondent has voluntarily entered into a compromise agreement stating that they don’t want to pursue the case. As the dispute is private in nature, the trial should not be proceeded further.
Respondent’s Argument
The trial court is required to verify the compromise deed before accepting the same as a ground for quashing.The applicants have to approach the trial court first, and the trial court will determine the compromise after due process.The trial court must make sure that all terms and conditions of the compromise have been fulfilled before giving any further order.
ANALYSIS:
The case is about the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a compromise between the parties in a case involving Sections 420, 323, and 506 IPC. The applicants had contended that it would be unnecessary to proceed with the trial since the dispute was private and settled amicably. After verification, the applicants could apply for final quashing by the High Court, with no coercive action against them in between. This ruling reflects the need for judicial review of compromise-based quashing of cases, especially non-compoundable offenses such as cheating, so that there will be fairness and observance of due process.
JUDGMENT
The parties must appear before the trial court within three weeks, along with an application for verification of the compromise deed and a certified copy of the High Court order. The trial court shall fix a date for verification and, after ensuring both parties’ presence, decide accordingly. The trial court must record the statement of the parties as to whether all terms of the compromise deed have been fulfilled. After verification of the compromise, applicants can obtain certified copies of the report and compromise deed and then move the High Court again for final quashing of the proceedings. No coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants until the compromise verification is complete. The entire process must be completed within three months from the date of the order.
CONCLUSION
The court did not quash the proceedings but ordered the trial court to verify. If correct, the applicants can re-move the High Court for final quashing. This upholds the principle that compromises in non-serious criminal cases must be encouraged.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SHIVRANJNI
