Dismissed¶9

Rajesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025NA528/23829/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.528 BNSS quashing application dismissed (Allahabad HC, Deepak Verma J., 25.09.2025); NBW dated 16.01.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 16.11.1994, charge sheet dated 15.07.1994, case no. 4558 of 2005, case crime no. 215 of 1994, sections 457/511/427 IPC, P.S. Handia, District Prayagraj; compromise deed held improper; settlor Manoj Chaurasia not informant nor bank employee/member; no interference warranted.

What did the court decide?

The compromise deed filed by the applicant is not in a proper manner: the alleged amicable settlement was with one Manoj Chaurasia, who has no concern with the present case, being neither the informant nor an employee or member of the bank that lodged the FIR. ¶8

Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23829 of 2025

¶3

Rajesh Kumar Pandey

¶4

				.....A	pplicant(s)
		Versus
State of U.P. and Another				...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Satish Mishra	Kumar,	Subhash	Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 72

¶5

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the non bailable warrant dated 16.01.2025 as well as cognizance /summoning order dated 16.11.1994 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court no.5, Allahabad and quash the charge sheet dated 15.07.1994 in case no.4558 of 2005 (State Versus Rajesh Kumar Pandey) arising out of case crime no. 215 of 1994, under section 457, 511, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj, which is pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.5, Allahabad.

¶8

Applicant's counsel filed this petition to quash the proceedings against the applicant on account of compromise. The compromise deed, filed herein, is not in a proper manner as applicant has amicably settled their dispute with one-Manoj Chaurasia, who has no concern with the present case, is not informant nor employee or member of the bank, who had lodged FIR.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid, no interference is warranted and the present 528 BNSS application of applicant- Rajesh Kumar Pandey, is hereby dismissed

¶10

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶11

September 25, 2025 Nitin Verma

¶12

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases