Compromise Verification Needs Complainant, Not Accused: SC

Compromise Verification in Compoundable Offences Needs Only the Complainant, Not the Accused: Supreme Court Allows Video Appearance

Published: 28 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court said that verifying a compromise in a case involving compoundable offences needs only the presence and consent of the complainant, not of the accused. Two petitioners working abroad, who had settled a 2018 cross case, were allowed to join the Magistrate's compromise verification by video conferencing, after first depositing Rs. 5 lakh with a children's institution in Chandigarh. Their special leave petition was disposed of with these directions (paras 8-11).

Key holdings

Only the complainant's presence and consent is mandatory to verify a compromise in a case involving compoundable offences; the accused need not be present (para 8).

With the co-accused's cases already quashed and the settlement undisputed, continuing against the petitioners would waste judicial time (para 8).

The petitioners will appear before the Magistrate by video conferencing, identified by their advocates; their physical presence is not to be insisted upon (paras 9-10).

Before verification, they must deposit Rs. 5 lakh with Ashiana (Specialized Adoption Agency) and Snehalaya for Girls (Children’s Home), Sector 15, Chandigarh, and place proof of payment before the trial court (para 10).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

FIR No. 221 of 28.12.2017 (Police Station Dehlon, Ludhiana; Sections 324, 323, 506 and 120B IPC) was registered against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (opening paragraph). Respondent No. 4 lodged a cross case, DDR No. 10 of 04.01.2018 (Sections 325, 506, 201 and 34 IPC), against five persons including both petitioners, who, working abroad, were declared proclaimed offenders (paras 2-3). After a settlement, the High Court quashed the cross case for three co-accused and the FIR for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (para 3). The petitioners settled on 04.02.2025 and sought quashing of the cross case and the proclamation orders. On 07.09.2026 the Punjab and Haryana High Court sent the parties to the trial court for compromise verification (paras 4-5).

Court's Findings

The Court stated that, for verification of a compromise in a case involving compoundable offences, only the presence and consent of the complainant is mandatory, and there is no requirement that the accused be present (para 8). It added that the High Court had already quashed the proceedings against the co-accused on the basis of the compromise, so continuing them against the petitioners, when the complainants had admittedly settled with them, would be a sheer wastage of judicial time (para 8). In view of what it called the peculiar facts, it directed that the petitioners appear before the Magistrate, in the verification ordered by the High Court on 07.09.2026, through virtual mode, and that their physical presence not be insisted upon (paras 9-10). The petitioners had offered to deposit Rs. 5 lakh with the institution named in the earlier quashing orders, which caters to children with specialised needs (paras 3, 7); the Court made that deposit a condition to be proved before the verification begins (para 10). The order cites no decision and names no procedural provision.

Legal Principle

For verification of a compromise in a case involving compoundable offences, only the presence and consent of the complainant is mandatory; the accused need not be present. On the peculiar facts here, accused working abroad were allowed to appear before the Magistrate by video conferencing, identified by their advocates, after a prior deposit (paras 8-10).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For accused who live or work abroad, this order removes a common obstacle to closing a settled case. In compoundable offences, the Supreme Court said, verifying a compromise needs only the complainant's presence and consent, not the accused's (para 8). Where a High Court sends the parties to the Magistrate for verification, accused abroad can ask to appear by video, identified by their advocates (para 10). The relief came on peculiar facts, after the co-accused's cases had been quashed, and on a deposit the petitioners themselves offered (paras 7-9); the order does not make a deposit a general condition. Compare Sanjabij Tari, a Supreme Court ruling on cheque-dishonour cases and the compounding of offences.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.