Motin and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48313

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4512 of 2025

Applicant :- Motin And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saggir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sarojani Misra,Vinod Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary Affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants,learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶8

By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the impugned chargesheet no. 33 of 2024, dated 29-10-2024 in Case No. 9676 of 2024(State Vs Motin and Others) in Case Crime No. 0027 of 2024, under sections 85,115(2) of the B.N.S. and section 3/4 of the D.P.Act and section 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019 against the petitioners and entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 9676 of 2024 (State Vs Motin and Others) in Case Crime No. 0027 of 2024, under sections 85,115(2) of the B.N.S. and section 3/4 of the D.P.Act and section 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019, relating to Police Station-Mahila Thana, DistrictAmethi.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that due to some misunderstanding the instant FIR was lodged and thereafter, the parties sat together and they have settled their dispute and that too, has been reduced in writing as a compromise deed dated 19.05.2025. Adding his

¶10

arguments, he submits that now the parties have put their all disputes at rest by way of executing compromise deed and thus further criminal proceedings against the present applicants would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicants.

¶11

Adding his arguments, he also submits that this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 27.05.2025 has referred the matter for compromise verification in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4512 of 2025 and in compliance of the aforesaid order, both the parties have appeared before the court below and the compromise deed dated 19.05.2025 has been verified in presence of all concerned parties and the order of verification was passed on 10.06.2025 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Sultanpur. He next added that now the matter has been compromised in between the parties, and as such the proceedings of Case No. 9676 of 2024 (State Vs Motin and Others) in Case Crime No. 0027 of 2024, under sections 85,115(2) of the B.N.S. and section 3/4 of the D.P.Act and section 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019, relating to Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Amethi, may be quashed.

¶12

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of the applicants and submits that the parties have entered into compromise deed and now there is no dispute in between the parties and thus the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped.

¶13

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid submissions of the

¶15

learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 19.05.2025 and said compromise has been verified on 10.06.2025 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned case, arising out of aforementioned Case Crime No. 0027 of 2024.

¶16

In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 19.05.2025 and no grievance remains to be agitated and as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶17

Resultantly, the proceedings of Case No. 9676 of 2024 (State Vs Motin and Others) in Case Crime No. 0027 of 2024, under sections 85,115(2) of the B.N.S. and section 3/4 of the D.P.Act and section 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019, relating to Police StationMahila Thana, District-Amethi,are hereby quashed.

¶18

The compromise deed shall be part of this order.

¶19

Consequences to be followed.

¶20

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Motin and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Motin and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Kajal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sheetaladin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Pradeep Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Akhilesh @ Bachcha and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another