Rohit Mishra @ Rohit Kumar Mishra and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Shivendra Singh,learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶12

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Session Trial No.103 of 2024 in're State Vs Rohit Mishra and others arising out of case crime no.339 of 2022 U/s 34, 452, 323, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149, 308 I.P.C., Police Station- Jahangirabad, DistrictBarabanki and Charge Sheet No.01 of 2023 dated 26.03.2023 which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit..

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have 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 applicants and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 02-04-2026, which has been annexed as annexure no. 3 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 applicants are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicants and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

¶14

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

¶15

A482 No. 3352 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

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 applicants may be dropped.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the Session Trial No.103 of 2024 in're State Vs Rohit Mishra and others arising out of case crime no.339 of 2022 U/s 34, 452, 323, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149, 308 I.P.C., Police Station- Jahangirabad, District-Barabanki, shall remain stayed so far as present applicants are concerned.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶26

April 22, 2026 AKS

¶27

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

Rohit Mishra @ Rohit Kumar Mishra and 9 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Mishra @ Rohit Kumar Mishra and 9 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faisal Khan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ashish Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ponam Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Shazeb Khan @ Shahzeb Khan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Zeba Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P.Govt. Lko. and 7 Others

Anil Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others