Court emphasizes compoundable offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC must be resolved on compromise without trial; trial court's disregard of High Court order deemed unbecoming judicial conduct
In a recent judgment dated August 31, 2026, the Allahabad High Court reprimanded a trial court judge for failing to act on a verified compromise between parties in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court underscored the mandatory nature of respecting compromise in compoundable offences, highlighting that the trial court should have decided the case on the basis of the compromise rather than proceeding with trial.
The case, Arshad and Another v. State of U.P., arose from a minor incident reported under Case Crime No. 190 of 2024 at Premnagar Police Station, Bareilly District. The applicants, Arshad and Dularey, had filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings on the basis of an amicable settlement reached with the complainant.
The High Court had, on August 8, 2025, disposed of the quashing application by directing the trial court to consider the compromise application if filed within two weeks and ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicants during this period. The Court explicitly stated that since offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC are compoundable, the trial court must decide the matter in accordance with the compromise.
However, the trial court, presided over by Ms. Anupriya, the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.7, Bareilly, failed to comply with this directive. Although the compromise was filed and verified on August 14, 2025, the trial court neither passed any order on the compromise nor disposed of the case accordingly. Instead, the court framed charges on August 29, 2025, conducted the trial, recorded statements of witnesses and accused, and only acquitted the accused after full trial on September 20, 2025.
The Allahabad High Court observed that the trial court’s conduct amounted to blatant disregard and violation of the High Court’s order and the provisions of law. The presiding officer’s explanation that the parties did not press the compromise was contradicted by the record, which showed the compromise was indeed filed and verified. The explanation also revealed that the trial court proceeded with the trial to enable the accused’s counsel to receive fees, an act the High Court found unbecoming of a judicial officer.
While the Court did not take further punitive action against the presiding officer, it issued a stern warning to exercise caution in the future and uphold judicial responsibilities. The Court also refused the applicants’ request to recall its earlier order, noting that the trial court had already concluded the case.
This judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards under BNSS and underscores the importance of judicial adherence to orders, especially in cases involving compoundable offences where amicable settlement is possible. The ruling serves as a reminder that courts must respect compromise agreements and avoid unnecessary trials, thereby promoting speedy and just resolution of disputes.
Bottom Line:
Offences under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC are compoundable, and upon compromise verification, the trial court must act in accordance with the compromise instead of proceeding with the trial.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC); Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
Arshad v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2973768
