Disposed

Amir Kidwai v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2025NA528/2034/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of criminal proceedings based on a recorded compromise, the single-judge Allahabad High Court disposed of the matter by directing parties to file a formal compromise application for verification by the trial court within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to parties to file a compromise application for verification; no coercive action for 3 months.

Amir Kidwai vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2034 of 2025

Amir Kidwai

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ruved Kamal Kidwai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Dinesh Kumar

¶8

Court No. - 16

¶9

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s), learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel, who has filed power on behalf of opposite party nos.2, which is taken on record.

¶11

The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Crl. Case No. 80849 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.57 of 2025, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Bazarkhala, District - Lucknow pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 28, Lucknow.

¶12

Learned counsel for both the parties submit that parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise and the original compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the application, therefore, the aforesaid case may be decided in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶13

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

¶14

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with a direction to both the parties to appear before the court concerned within four weeks

¶15

NA528 No. 2034 of 2025

¶16

¶17

from the date and file their comprise application. If such compromise application is filed, the court concerned shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise within six weeks from that date. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court making compromise to be part of the record and a report to that effect shall also be send to this Court whether the said compromise took place or not. The court concerned will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise. It will also be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶18

For a period of three months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid complaint case.

¶19

7 Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the counsel for the applicant(s) after retaining a photocopy of the same on record.

¶20

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶21

December 4, 2025

¶22

Mohit Singh/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amir Kidwai v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir Kidwai v. the State of U.P. Thru. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shahnawaz Hussain Siddiqui vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Radheyshyam Yadav and 4 Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ram Asre Maurya and 4 Others vs State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Deepak Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Yogendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rashid Alias Mohd. Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another