Suresh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Suresh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim stay of the effect and implementation of the impugned orders dated 11.03.2022 and 23.09.2025 till the next date of listing; trial court directed to verify the compromise deed upon its filing in original (notices to signatories for personal presence, verification within two weeks, report to this Court forthwith); matter listed on 17.03.2026 as fresh. Final quashing/compounding to follow upon verification of the compromise.

Issue for consideration

Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter — a fact that can best be ascertained by the Court below, where the compromise must be duly verified in the presence of the parties concerned. +2 more

Court's answer

Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter 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.

Ratio / Principle

Since the parties are settling the issues by way of compromise and it is undisputed between the parties that all the alleged offences are compoundable, it would be just and proper to dispose of the matter by way of compounding the case.

Key takeaways

The trial court is directed that if the compromise deed along with the application is filed in original before it within two weeks, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise deed requiring their personal presence, proceed to verify the compromise deed within two weeks, and thereafter send its report to this Court forthwith.ratio¶¶14
Considering that the double amount has been paid by the Revisionist to Opposite Party No. 2 (not opposed by learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2), the effect and implementation of the impugned order dated 11.03.2022 (Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Varanasi) and the order dated 23.09.2025 (Additional District and Sessions Judge / FTC Court II, Varanasi) is hereby stayed till the next date of listing.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Defective) — Suresh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Allahabad HC, Divesh Chandra Samant, J., 16.02.2026): Parties reported a compromise, photostat compromise deed annexed (Annexure No. 1, pp. 57–66). It being undisputed that all alleged offences are compoundable, the Court held it just and proper to dispose of the matter by compounding. Trial court directed: if the compromise deed with application is filed in original within two weeks, issue notices to all signatories requiring personal presence, verify the compromise deed within two weeks, and report to the High Court forthwith. Considering the double amount paid by the Revisionist to Opposite Party No. 2 (not opposed), effect and implementation of the orders dated 11.03.2022 (Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Varanasi) and 23.09.2025 (Additional District and Sessions Judge / FTC Court II, Varanasi) stayed till the next date. Listed 17.03.2026 as fresh.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 2065 of 2025

Suresh Kumar Singh

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Vinai Shanker Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Jitendra Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 89

HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that now the parties have entered into compromise and the photostat copy of the said compromise deed is annexed at page nos.57 to 66 as Annexure No.1 to the present revision and he prayed to quash the impugned orders on the basis of compromise.

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.

Since the parties are settling the issues by way of compromise and it is undisputed between the parties that all the alleged offences are compoundable, therefore, it would be just and proper to dispose of the matter by way of compounding the case.

The concerned trial Court is directed that if any such compromise deed along-with application is filed in original before it within two weeks, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise deed requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the said compromise deed with two weeks. After verifying the said compromise, the report shall be sent to this Court forthwith.

List on 17.03.2026, as fresh.

Considering the facts that the double amount has been paid by the Revisionist to Opposite Party No.2 which has not been opposed by the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2, the effect and implementation of

CRLRD No. 2065 of 2025

2

the impugned order dated 11.03.2022, passed by presiding officer Additional Court, Varanasi and order dated 23.09.2025, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge /FTC Court II, Varanasi, is hereby stayed, till then next date of listing.

February 16, 2026 I.A.Siddiqui

(Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad