Mohammad Naim and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3542 of 2026

¶3

Mohammad Naim And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Priyanshi Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Anil Kumar Maurya

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

1. Sri Anil Kumar Maurya, Advocate has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the same is taken on record.

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Anil Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

3. By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 03.10.2013 and summoning order dated 13.01.2014 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.153/2014 State of U.P. Vs Naim & others pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.P.) Lucknow which is arising out of case crime no.345-A/2013 in offence under section 452, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.

¶12

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case No.153/2014 State of U.P. Vs Naim & others pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.P.) Lucknow till disposal of instant petition before this Hon'ble Court, as it is desirable in the interest of justice.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to certain misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants. He

¶14

A482 No. 3542 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

added that later on, the parties sat together and have amicably settled their disputes, which has been reduced in writing on 03.12.2024. Thereafter, the applicants filed an Application U/S 482 No.1548 of 2025 wherein this Court vide order dated 24.02.2025 has directed the trial court to verify the said compromise deed and in compliance thereof, the compromise deed was verified on 05.06.2025. He submits that now there is no dispute in between the parties and they have settled their dispute. He submits that further criminal proceedings in the instant matter would amount to harassment and, thus, the instant criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

¶17

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the opposite party no. 2, 3 and 4 have no grievance, hence, criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

¶18

6. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submissions aforesaid.

¶19

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 03.12.2024 and said compromise has been verified on 05.06.2025 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶20

8. In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 03.12.2024 and no grievance remains to be agitated and, as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008) 9 SCC 677; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶21

9. Accordingly, entire criminal proceedings against the applicants

¶22

A482 No. 3542 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

in Criminal Case No.153/2014 State of U.P. Vs Naim & others pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.P.) Lucknow which is arising out of case crime no.345-A/2013 in offence under section 452, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow, are hereby quashed.

¶25

10. The compromise shall be part of this order.

¶26

11. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶27

12. Consigned to the records.

¶28

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶29

April 28, 2026

¶30

Anurag

¶31

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

Mohammad Naim and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Naim and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sayara Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Pankaj Tiwari and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

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

Arjun Kumar @ Neeru Kharwar @ Arjun Kharwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. and Another