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

Sri Purushottam Chaurasia, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and the same is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Chaurasia, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶12

The instant application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 109/2014 dated 1- 07-2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 551 of 2013 U/S 363, 366, 376 I.P.C, P.S. Kotwali, District Sitapur along with charge sheet no. 62/2015 dated 21.05.2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2014 U/S 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Sitapur and the impugned non-bailable warrant order dated 06.05.2025 in Case Crime No. 551 of 2013 as well as the entire proceedings of Case no. 1902 of 2014 "State Vs Imran" pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, in the light of compromise dated 08.06.2026.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and thereafter, the parties have amicably

¶14

A482 No. 4883 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 08.06.2026 which has been annexed as annexure no.5 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 applicant is the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicant and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant and the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped.

¶18

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

¶19

Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

¶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 applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶22

For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the charge sheet no. 109/2014 dated 1- 07-2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 551 of 2013 U/S 363, 366, 376 I.P.C, P.S. Kotwali, District Sitapur and charge sheet no. 62/2015 dated 21.05.2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2014 U/S 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4

¶23

A482 No. 4883 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Sitapur and the impugned nonbailable warrant order dated 06.05.2025 in Case Crime No. 551 of 2013 as well as the entire proceedings of Case no. 1902 of 2014 "State Vs Imran" pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, shall remain stayed so far as applicant is concerned.

¶26

The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the charge-sheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.

¶27

Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicant, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same.

¶28

(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)

¶29

June 12, 2026

¶30

V. Sinha

¶31

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Imran Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. U.P. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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

Nida Ayaz and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt of Law and Justice and Another