Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has set aside a non-bailable warrant (NBW) and a proclamation order under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), ruling that a trial court cannot proceed with coercive measures when a direction to verify a compromise deed between the parties is pending. Justice Shree Prakash Singh held that the trial court’s actions were contrary to a prior High Court order and remitted the matter for compliance.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on April 15, 2023, registered as Case Crime No. 427 of 2003, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri. Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant, Amit Agarwal.
Subsequently, the applicant and the informant (opposite party no. 3) resolved their dispute amicably and executed a compromise deed. Based on this settlement, the applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court in 2014. On January 12, 2015, the High Court disposed of that application, referring the matter to the trial court with a direction to verify the compromise and staying further proceedings in the interim.
Despite the High Court’s order, the trial court did not verify the compromise deed. Instead, on August 22, 2024, it issued a non-bailable warrant against the applicant. This was followed by another order on October 22, 2024, and ultimately a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on June 6, 2025. The applicant challenged these three orders in the present application.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailendra Srivastava, argued that the trial court acted erroneously by issuing coercive orders without first complying with the High Court’s directive of January 12, 2015. He contended that after the compromise deed was filed on February 4, 2015, there was no occasion for the trial court to proceed with the criminal case until the compromise was verified and the stay order was revoked. He submitted that the issuance of an NBW after a gap of nine years, while ignoring the pending compromise verification, rendered the impugned orders illegal.
The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State of U.P. opposed the application but, as the judgment notes, “could not dispute that vide order dated 12.01.2015, applicant had given liberty to move before the trial court by way of submitting the compromise deed and the trial court was directed to verify the same.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After considering the submissions and perusing the record, Justice Shree Prakash Singh found merit in the applicant’s plea. The Court observed that the core issue stemmed from the trial court’s failure to act on the High Court’s earlier direction.
The Court noted, “The fact remains that undoubtedly, the compromise deed is before the learned trial court and there is a direction of this Court to verify the same and that has still not been done.”
The judgment highlights that the trial court, instead of considering the compromise deed dated March 22, 2010, proceeded with the case, issuing an NBW directly after a significant delay. The Court concluded that this course of action was improper given the pending directive for verification.
Finding merit in the application, the Court allowed the plea. In its final order, the Court stated: “Resultantly, the orders dated 22.08.2024, 22.10.2024 and 06.06.2025 passed by the opposite party no.2- ACJM/FTC, Lakhmpur Kheri, District- Kheri… are hereby set aside.”
The matter has been remitted back to the trial court with a specific direction “to make compliance of the order dated 12.01.2015 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No.4905 of 2014.” The Court also directed the parties to cooperate with the proceedings before the trial court.
