Allowed

Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma @ Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2026A482/4691/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of a chargesheet and cognizance order in a POCSO case on the basis of a compromise deed between the parties, verified by the trial court. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the entire criminal proceedings following Supreme Court precedents permitting quashing on compromise.

What did the court decide?

Chargesheet, cognizance order and entire criminal proceedings in Session Case no. 588/2024 quashed; compromise made part of the order.

Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma @ Ashish Kumar vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4691 of 2026

¶3

Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma @ Ashish Kumar

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vipin Mishra, Km. Anjali Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 13

¶6

HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

¶7

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Amrish Tiwari, Advocate, on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶9

By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed to quash the chargesheet no. 01/2023 dated 06.12.2023, arising out of Case Crime no. 799/2023, under sections 323, 342, 354, 506, I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station P.G.I. District Lucknow along with cognizance order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act / Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Session Case no. 588/2024 "State Vs. Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma", in the light of compromise deed dated 25.03.2026.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to certain misunderstanding, the instant FIR was lodged against the applicants and thereafter the parties sat together and has amicably settled their dispute which has been reduced in writing on 25.03.2026. He added that thereafter the applicants filed the instant application for direction to the trial Court to verify the compromise deed and in compliance of the order dated 16.04.2026, the verification was done and report has been submitted

¶11

A482 No. 4691 of 2026

¶12

¶13

to this Court. He submits that further criminal proceeding in the instant matter would amount to harassment and thus the impugned criminal proceeding may be quashed.

¶14

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

¶15

Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the contention aforesaid.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 25.03.2026 and said compromise has been verified on 29.04.2026 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal case.

¶17

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

¶18

Accordingly, criminal proceedings with regard to quash the charge sheet no. 01/2023 dated 06.12.2023, arising out of Case Crime no. 799/2023, under section 323, 342, 354, 506, I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station P.G.I. District Lucknow along with cognizance order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act / Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Session Case no. 588/2024 "State Vs. Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma", are hereby quashed.

¶19

A482 No. 4691 of 2026

¶20

¶21

The compromise shall be part of this order. 11. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

Consigned to record.

¶23

(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)

¶24

June 12, 2026

¶25

V. Sinha

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma @ Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma @ Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amir vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Nanhe vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohd.Avid Alias Avid vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Sachin Alias Sachin Rawat and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Imran Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. U.P. and 2 Others