Vishal Kashyap and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1317 of 2026

¶3

Vishal Kashyap And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhir Kumar, Ashish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 16

¶9

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶10

Power filed today by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶12

The present application has been filed with the following main prayers:

¶13

"to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow in Case Crime No. 308/2023 (State versus Sohit Pandey @ Rohit Pandey and others) U/S 376-D/506/120-B/34IPC & 67/67A of IT Act, P.S. Ashiyana, District Lucknow, pending in the court of Fast Tract Court -1 Lucknow and also set aside the charge sheet dated 16.09.2023 in light of the compromise dated 02.01.2026 contained as ANNEXURE NO. 1&2 to this petition"

¶14

In this case, FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376-D IPC, was filed against the applicant, but learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been arrived between them dated 02.01.2026 (Original copy of the same is appended as annexure No.6 to the application). Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon Para-7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, Criminal Appeal,

¶15

A482 No. 1317 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7212 of 2025, 2025 INSC 819 , and other connected matters, decided on 14.7.2025, which reads as under:

¶18

"7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome."

¶19

Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, before which, the case is pending. Therefore, the compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court below itself.

¶20

Counsel for opposite party no.2 has no objection, in case compromise takes place.

¶21

Both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned court within two weeks from today and file/pursue their compromise application. The court below is directed to pass an order on the said compromise application and all formalities will be completed within eight weeks from that date.

¶22

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it or has been already filed, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the

¶23

A482 No. 1317 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

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. 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.

¶26

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

¶27

Registry is directed to return the original copy of the compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants after taking photocopy of the same.

¶28

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶29

February 17, 2026 Mohit Singh/-

¶30

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

Vishal Kashyap and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Kashyap and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home 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

Narendra @ Nanda vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Headway Enterprises Thru. Its Partner Anand Kumar Pandey and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shafaat Ejaz Siddiqui vs U.O.I. Thru. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Lko. U.P. Lko.

Prabhakar @ Deva vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shahabuddin Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Anoop @ Vinod vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others