Complaint under sections 323/504/506 IPC quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties that was verified by A.C.J.M.-IV, Lucknow, following Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.
Proceedings of complaint case No. 88994 of 2022 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:993
Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 75 of 2025 Applicant :- Abhimanyu Alias Abhimanyu Chandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Shanker Singh
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Ravi Shankar Singh, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that compromise was entered between the parties and vide order dated 10.12.2024, both the parties were directed to appear before the concerned court/trial court for verification of the compromise deed which is on record as Annexure No. 6 to the petition. In purported compliance of order dated 10.12.2024, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 were present before the A.C.J.M.-IV, Court no. 28, Lucknow and in presence the parties and their counsel, compromise has been verified by the A.C.J.M-IV, Lucknow vide order dated 16.12.2024 which is on record as Annexure No. 8 to the petition.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court by entering into compromise and the said compromise has been verified under the order of the Court, hence, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab" reported in "(2012) 10 SCC 303" , the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection to this prayer.
In view of the above and considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab" reported in "(2012) 10 SCC 303" , as well as the fact that the compromise dated 02.12.2024 entered between the parties has been verified by A.C.J.M.-IV, Court No. 28 Lucknow vide order dated 16.12.2024, the proceedings of complaint case No. 88994 of 2022 "Mahendra Pratap Pandey Vs. Abhimanyu", under sections 323/504/506 I.P.C., P.S. Maal, District Lucknow, are hereby quashed .
The petition is allowed . Order Date :- 7.1.2025 R.C.
Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings of a complaint case should be quashed on the basis of a verified compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabFollowed
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abhimanyu Alias Abhimanyu Chandra
Mahendra Pratap Pandey
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
