Disposed¶21

Amit Kumar @ Amit Sahu and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2025A482/8774/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

482 quashing application; Amit Kumar @ Amit Sahu; charge sheet 16.02.2024; S.T. No. 659 of 2024; F.I.R. No. 296 of 2023; Sections 498-A 304-B IPC; Section 3/4 DP Act; dowry death; cruelty; P.S. Rampur Kalan District Sitapur; hostile witnesses P.W. 1 P.W. 2 parents of deceased; settlement agreement 17.07.2025; respondent no. 2 supported quashing; A.G.A. opposed; expedite trial within six months; no quashing; disposed; Rajeev Singh J; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; 16 October 2025.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing not granted; application disposed of with a direction to the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments, if possible within six months. ¶21

Amit Kumar @ Amit Sahu and Another Vs State of U.P… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer for quashing not granted; application disposed of with a direction to the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments, if possible within six months.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 16.02.2024 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 659 of 2024 (arising out of F.I.R. No. 296 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Rampur Kalan, District Sitapur) should be quashed, given that the deceased's parents (examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) were declared hostile after denying the prosecution story and the parties settled the matter by agreement dated 17.07.2025, at a stage when the trial is pending and witnesses have already been examined.

¶13

Court's answer

The Court did not quash the charge sheet or the proceedings; it disposed of the application with a direction to the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, without giving unnecessary adjournments to either party, if possible within six months.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded that it was the admitted case of the applicants as well as respondent no. 2 that the parents of the deceased had not supported the prosecution version before the trial court.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application u/s 482 (No. 8774 of 2025, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 14, Rajeev Singh, J.) by Amit Kumar @ Amit Sahu and another seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 16.02.2024 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 659 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 296 of 2023 (Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C.; Section 3/4 of D.P. Act; P.S. Rampur Kalan, District Sitapur). Counsel pleaded that the F.I.R. rested on incorrect facts, that the deceased's parents (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) had been declared hostile after categorically denying the prosecution story, and that the parties had settled the matter by agreement dated 17.07.2025; respondent no. 2's counsel supported the prayer, while the learned A.G.A. opposed interference since the trial was pending and witnesses had been examined. The Court, noting it was the admitted position that the deceased's parents had not supported the prosecution version, did not quash the proceedings and disposed of the application, directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments, if possible within six months. Decided 16.10.2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8774 of 2025

¶3

Amit Kumar @ Amit Sahu And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Prem Chandra Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 14

¶9

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶10

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Kashi Ram, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 2 is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶12

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 16.02.2024 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No. 659 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 296 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Rampur Kalan, District Sitapur.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. No. 296 of 2023 was lodged on the basis of incorrect facts. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the parent of deceased were examined before the trial court as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and they have already been declared as hostile, as they categorically denied the prosecution story. It is also submitted that the issue has been resolved in between the parties outside the court by way of settlement agreement on 17.07.2025. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned proceedings may be quashed .

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 also supports

¶15

A482 No. 8774 of 2025

¶16

¶17

the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶18

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits that once the case is pending before the trial court and all the witnesses have already been examined, then it is not appropriate to interfere in the matter at this stage.

¶19

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is the admitted case of the applicants as well as respondent no. 2 that parent of the deceased have not supported the prosecution version before the trial court.

¶20

In view of above facts and circumstances, the trial court is directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if possible, within a period of six months.

¶21

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the application stands disposed of.

¶22

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶23

October 16, 2025

¶24

VKS

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Kumar @ Amit Sahu and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar @ Amit Sahu and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashutosh Chander Mishra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sakshi Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Laxmi Awasthi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ajmer Ali (in Fir as Ajmer Mistri ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Israr Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another

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