Imran @ Raju and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mr. Akram Pervez Siddiqui, Advocate has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Ms. Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Akram Pervez Siddiqi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2,learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶12

By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the Charge-sheet of the Criminal Case No. 23377 of 2023 titled as State of U.P. Versus Imran alias Raju and Others in Case Crime No. 130 of 2022, Under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationMahila Thana, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (J.D.) - Fast Track Court, Crime Against Women, Lucknow. It has also been prayed to quash the Order of Cognizance dated 09.11.2023, passed in the aforesaid Criminal Case No. 23377 of 2023, calling upon the petitioners/applicants to face Trial for the offences punishable Under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Fast Track Court, Crime Against Women, Lucknow, and allow this petition/application.

¶13

A482 No. 4000 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that due to some misunderstanding the instant FIR was lodged and thereafter, the parties sat together and they have settled their dispute and that too, has been reduced in writing as a compromise deed dated 24.07.2025. Adding his arguments, he submits that now the parties have put their all disputes at rest by way of executing compromise deed and thus further criminal proceedings against the present applicants would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicants.

¶16

Adding his arguments, he also submits that this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 23.09.2025 has referred the matter for compromise verification in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6917 of 2024 and in compliance of the aforesaid order, both the parties have appeared before the trial court and the compromise deed dated 03.07.2023 has been verified in presence of all concerned parties and the order of verification was passed on 17.02.2026 by the learned learned trial court. He next added that now the matter has been compromised in between the parties, and as such the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of the applicants and submits that the parties have entered into compromise deed and now there is no dispute in between the parties and thus the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped.

¶18

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 24.07.2025 and said compromise has been verified on 17.02.2026 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

A482 No. 4000 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 24.07.2025 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 Judgements 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.

¶23

Resultantly, the entire criminal proceedings against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 23377 of 2023 titled as State of U.P. Versus Imran alias Raju and Others in Case Crime No. 130 of 2022, Under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Lucknow,are hereby quashed.

¶24

The compromise deed shall be part of this order.

¶25

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶26

Consequences to follow.

¶27

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶28

May 13, 2026 AKS

¶29

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

Imran @ Raju and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran @ Raju and 3 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

Prem Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Mohd. Muzammil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sunny Kannaujiya and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ravi Bhushan Maurya @ Rahul Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dhanpal Rathore and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Hardik Trivedi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others