Mohd. Waseem @ Vaseem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2025A482/9624/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 application seeking quashing of FIR and cognizance order on the basis of a compromise between the parties, who claim to have married. Court directed the applicant to file the compromise before the trial court for verification and report, with interim protection against coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction: no coercive action against applicant until next listing; compromise to be filed and verified by trial court.

Mohd. Waseem @ Vaseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9624 of 2025

¶3

Mohd. Waseem @ Vaseem

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Pt. Devesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 34

¶10

HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.

¶11

Sri Nipendra Mishra, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 which is taken on record.

¶12

Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nipendra Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that both parties have married, and reliance has been placed on the judgments of Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2022 SC 1227 and K. Kirubakaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu , passed in Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2024, decided on 28.10.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the proceedings pursuant to the F.I.R., observing that further proceedings under the F.I.R. would amount to harassment to the appellant as the parties had entered into a compromise. In the instant case, as admitted by both parties, they have married and have no grievance against each other.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the parties have entered into compromise, copy of which is annexed as annexure no. 7 at page 51 to the affidavit in support of present application. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed.

¶15

Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicant shall file the said compromise within a period of two weeks from today before the court concerned who shall verify the same within two weeks

¶16

A482 No. 9624 of 2025

¶17

¶18

thereafter and send his report to this Court.

¶19

List after six weeks.

¶20

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in Case Crime No. 894 of 2019, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nanpara, District Bahraich as well as summoning / cognizance order dated 26.06.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Criminal Case No. 6440 of 2020 (State vs. Vaseem).

¶21

Learned counsels for the parties are also at liberty to file the order of compromise through an affidavit in the present matter.

¶22

Office is directed to return the original / certified copy of the compromise, which has been annexed in the instant application, as per rules, after retaining the photocopy of the same.

¶23

(Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)

¶24

November 15, 2025

¶25

Manoj

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Waseem @ Vaseem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Waseem @ Vaseem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anikesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohit (in F.I.R Mohit Singh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sandeep Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Suraj Divakar @ Suraj Kumar Kanaujiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ran Vijay Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another