Disposed

Mohd. Aafak v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2026A482/3270/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a cognizance/summoning order and charge sheet after reaching a compromise with the complainant. The court disposed of the application by directing the trial court to verify the compromise with signatories present, allowing the applicant to re-approach thereafter. Proceedings stayed for three months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohd. Aafak vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3270 of 2026

Mohd. Aafak

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shamshad Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

Mohd. Naeem,Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Naeem, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to set aside/quash the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 15.11.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) FTC Court No. 38, Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 851 of 2024 "State of U.P Vs. Mohd Aafak" and the impugned Charge Sheet dated 23.09.2023 filed in Case Crime No. 317 of 2023, Under sections109, 504, 505 I.P.C. PoliceStation Mohammadpur Khale, District Barabanki as contained in Annexure no.1 and 2 respectively to this petition and further the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 851 of 2024 "State of U.P. Vs. Mohd Aafak arising out of Case Crime No. 317 of 2023, Under sections 100, 504, 505 LP.C. Potice Station Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki pending before learned Civil Judge (5.D.) FTC Court No. 38, Barabanki arising out of the Fift dated 11.07.2023 be also set aside/quashed, against the petitioner, in terms of the compromise deed dated

¶12

A482 No. 3270 of 2026

¶13

¶14

12.03.2026 as contained in Annexure no.4 to this petition, otherwise, the petitioner would suffer Irreparable loss and injury which cannot be made good in or any event.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that due to some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 12-03-2026, which has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to the instant application. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicant are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicant and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicants and the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped.

¶17

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

¶18

Now 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 concerned before the Court.

¶19

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

¶20

A482 No. 3270 of 2026

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Criminal Case No. 851 of 2024 "State of U.P. Vs. Mohd Aafak arising out of Case Crime No. 317 of 2023, Under sections 100, 504, 505 LP.C. Potice Station Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki, shall remain stayed so far as present applicant is concerned.

¶25

The trial court is further directed for ensuring the fact that all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed are present before the trial court and a report with respect to this effect shall also be sent alongwith verification order.

¶26

Office is directed to return the copy of original compromise deed to learned counsel for the applicant within a week.

¶27

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶28

April 21, 2026 AKS

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Aafak v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohd. Aafak v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Sattar vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shailendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sujauddin @ Suja and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ilsiya Fatima vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home and 3 Others

Ravi Kannojia vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Babu Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another