Disposed

Firoz and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2025NA528/42991/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings based on compromise. The Court directed parties to approach the Trial Court for verification of the compromise deed, suspending coercive action until then. The applicants are permitted to return to this Court for quashing after the Trial Court's decision.

What did the court decide?

Stay of coercive action pending verification of compromise by Trial Court.

Firoz and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42991 of 2025

¶3

Firoz And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Amitrana
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application U/s 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed to allow the instant application and quash the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 728 of 2024 (Shehanwaz Siddhiqui Vs. Firoz and others) under Sections 307 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Nehtaur, District-Bijnor as well as summoning order dated 11.09.2024 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No. 1, Bijnor pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bijnor in respect of compromise dated 29.10.2025.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their disputes vide compromise dated 29.10.2025, which has been placed as Annexure No. '9' to the present application. It has also been submitted that the injuries caused are simple in nature except Injury No. 3 which is grievous in nature. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court concerned and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

¶12

Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the Trial Court, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned Court and move an application

¶13

NA528 No. 42991 of 2025

¶14

¶15

with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

¶16

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. It is expected that Court concerned may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not.

¶17

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.

¶18

Till verification of compromise between the parties by the Court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of .

¶20

November 6, 2025 Shivani

¶21

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Firoz and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz and 2 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Anees Haidar @ Massu vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Pushpendra Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Varshney and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashid and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rekha and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Chotalla Alias Pradeep vs State of U.P. and Another