Moti Lal @ Motilal Sonkar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Vivek Johsi, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 & 3, 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 proceedings of S.T.No.253 of 2023 "State Vs. Moti lal Sonkar and others" Under Section- 323, 352, 307 IPC, which is arising out of Case CrimeNo.468/2020, under section-147, 323, 352, 307 IPC, police Station-Mahanagar, District-Lucknow, pending before learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court no.-4, Lucknow on the basis of compromise dated 14.05.2026, in the interest of justice. It has further been prayed to quash the impugned chargesheet No.01 of 2021, dated 17.02.2021 filed under section- 323, 352, 307 IPC, police Station-Mahanagar, District-Lucknow as well as impugned summoning order dated 30.07.2021 passed by learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI(A.P.), Lucknow, Under Section-323, 352, 307 IPC, in S.T.No.253 of 2023 "State Vs. Motilal Sonkar and others" arising out of Case Crime No.486/2020, under section- 147, 323, 352, 307, IPC police Station-Mahanagar, District-Lucknow, pending before learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.-4, Lucknow contained as Annexure No.1 and 2 to this petition,

¶13

A482 No. 4424 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

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 14-05-2026, which has been annexed as annexure no. 10 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.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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,

¶19

I have considered that the injuries are not vital in nature and therefore, the case of the present applicants seems to be covered with paragraph no. 15.4 of the ratio of Judgment State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 688 .

¶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

¶22

A482 No. 4424 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

proceedings.

¶25

For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of S.T.No.253 of 2023 "State Vs. Moti lal Sonkar and others" Under Section- 323, 352, 307 IPC, which is arising out of Case CrimeNo.468/2020, under section-147, 323, 352, 307 IPC, police Station-Mahanagar, District-Lucknow, shall remain stayed so far as present applicants are concerned.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶29

May 25, 2026

¶30

AKS

¶31

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

Moti Lal @ Motilal Sonkar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Lal @ Motilal Sonkar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 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

Harikesh @ Harikesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Rajiv Kumar Choubey @ Rajiv Choubey vs State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary/ Additional Chief Secretary, Home

Shailendra Trivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Smt. Shanti Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Dinesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Dharm Chandra Kaushal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another