Rishi Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43479

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3635 of 2022

Petitioner :- Rishi Kumar And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi,Avnish Kumar Tiwari,Dr. Surendra Kumar Misra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Prem Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Instant application has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶9

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2022, passed by Learned Sessions Judge Hardoi in Criminal Revision No. 43/2021 arising out complaint Case No. 1877/2020 and the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Hardoi in complaint case no. 1877/2020 (Rohit Kumar Tiwari Versus Smt. Rubi and Others) whereby petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the offence of 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. police station Sandila, District Hardoi and entirath Poomsedings of the case in pursuance of order dated 18.02.2021, against the petitioners contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this petition.

¶10

II. Issue direction in the nature of a writ, order or Mandamus commanding to opposite parties to not to proceed further in pursuance of impugned order dated 18.02.2021 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Hardoi in complaint case no. 1877/2020 whereby petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the offence of 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. police station Sandila, district Hardoi in re, Rohit Kumar Tiwari Versus Smt. Rubi and Others during pendency of this petition."

¶11

Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 18.07.2025 referred the matter to the Senior Registrar of this Court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶12

In compliance of order of this Court dated 18.07.2025, the Senior Registrar of this Court has submitted his report dated 23.07.2025 regarding verification of compromise, which is on record, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC

¶14

688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 .

¶15

Learned counsel for the side opposite could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the proceedings, in issue.

¶16

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the report of Senior Registrar of this Court as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, which is essentially a matrimonial dispute, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the same are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.

¶17

Accordingly, the present application is allowed .

¶18

Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Anand/-

¶19

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

Rishi Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Kumar and Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sita Ram Vs State of U.P.

Rajjan Lal Gautam Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow and 2 Ors.

Ram Raj Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mansi Patel Thru. Her Mother Smt.Kusum Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Abdul Rashid Khan @ Abdul Rashid and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Indian Farm Forestry Development Cooperative Ltd. Thru. Project Manager Shri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Vs Mangala Trading Company Thru. Its Proprietor Shri Mohit Kumar and Another