Mayank Srivastava and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, Ms. Salma Bano, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

3. By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 13.01.2022 issued by the Addition Chief Judicial Magistrate 6th Court No 30 Lucknow in Case No 2903/2022 State Vs. Mayank Srivastava and others arising out of Case Crime No- 0287/2020 under Section 498-A, 323, 354, 354-Ga I.P.C, 3/4 D.V Act PS Talkatora Lucknow, As Well As Impugned Charge Sheet No. 01/2021 Dated 01.08.2021 along with entire criminal proceeding of the aforesaid case pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court no 27 Lucknow of the aforesaid case as contained in Annexure no. 1 and 2 on the basis of compromise dated 23.03.2026 as contained in annexure no 4 which is verified 10.04.2026 contained in annexure no 6 to this petition 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. 3548 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 23.03.2026. Thereafter, the applicants filed an Application U/S 482 No.2670 of 20226 wherein this Court vide order dated 31.03.2026 has directed the trial court to verify the said compromise deed and in compliance thereof, the compromise deed was verified on 10.04.2026. 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 no.2 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 has 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 23.03.2026 and said compromise has been verified on 10.04.2026 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 23.03.2026 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 in Case

¶22

A482 No. 3548 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

No 2903/2022 State Vs. Mayank Srivastava and others arising out of Case Crime No- 0287/2020 under Section 498-A, 323, 354, 354-Ga I.P.C, 3/4 D.V Act PS Talkatora 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

Mayank Srivastava and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Srivastava and 2 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

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

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

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