Disposed

Sushil Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2025NA528/1088/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed an application to quash criminal proceedings alleging false implication where parties claimed an amicable settlement. The court held that factual verification of the compromise is required by the trial court before any quashing order is passed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings stayed for three months; trial court directed to verify compromise and file report.

Sushil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1088 of 2025

¶3

Sushil Kumar And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Srees Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 14

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

Ms. Tiwari Shivani, Advocate has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record.

¶10

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

¶11

Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the following relief:-

¶12

"1. Pass an order or direction thereby quashing of the charge sheet dated 23.12.2024, concerning Case Crime No.907 of 2024, under section 352, 115(2), 110, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Kotwali, district Unnao, as well as quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 18.02.2025, passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao, parties State versus Sushil Kumar and another, pending in the court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao, on the basis of amicable settlement with the opposite party no.2."

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the present F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants and thereafter, the parties have amicably settled their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 12.08.2025, which has been annexed as annexure no. 6 to this application. He submits that now there is no

¶14

NA528 No. 1088 of 2025

¶15

¶16

grievance in between the parties and the criminal proceedings against the applicants are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicants and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably while executing a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicants, therefore, the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants may be dropped.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶19

Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

¶20

Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

¶21

The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶22

For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the Case Crime No.907 of 2024, under Sections 352, 115(2), 110, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned.

¶23

The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the

¶24

NA528 No. 1088 of 2025

¶25

¶26

compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.

¶27

Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same.

¶28

August 29, 2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶29

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sushil Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Rana and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anand Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Avinash Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Ravi Shanker Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Raj Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sayyam Nagpal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another