Rahul Ramchandra Saini @ Rahul Saini and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4115 of 2026

¶3

Rahul Ramchandra Saini @ Rahul Saini And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailesh Sachan, Animesh Bajpai, Jitendra Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

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

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Sudheer Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶11

By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the impugned Charge sheet no. 01 dated 23.09.2018 in case crime no. 286/2016 under section 498A, 323,504, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow., contained in Annexure No. 2 to this petition, may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice. It has further been prayed to quash the proceeding initiated from impugned Charge sheet no. 01 dated 23.09.2018 in case crime no. 286/2016 under section 498A, 323,504, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station- Talkatora, District - Lucknow in pursuance of report dated 06.05.2026, contained in Annexure No.5 to this petition.

¶12

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 13.04.2026. 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

¶13

A482 No. 4115 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

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 22.04.2026 has referred the matter for compromise verification in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3346 of 2026 and in compliance of the aforesaid order, both the parties have appeared before the trial court and the compromise deed dated 13.04.2026 has been verified in presence of all concerned parties and the order of verification was passed on 06.05.2026 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 13.04.2026 and said compromise has been verified on 06.05.2026 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

In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 13.04.2026 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 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.

¶21

Resultantly, the entire criminal proceedings against the applicants in case crime no. 286/2016 under section 498A, 323,504, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow.are

¶22

A482 No. 4115 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

hereby quashed.

¶25

The compromise deed shall be part of this order. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶26

Consequences to follow.

¶27

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)