Allowed¶26

Ravindra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2026NA528/1269/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on matrimonial compromise; application under S. 528 BNSS allowed; charge-sheet dated 05.12.2024 under sections 498A, 506 IPC, PS Bazar Khala, Lucknow; Case No. 66150/2025; compromise deed dated 26.01.2026 verified 09.03.2026; referral order dated 19.02.2026 in 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 679 of 2026; reliance on B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma, Gian Singh, Narindra Singh; proceedings quashed; compromise deed part of order.

What did the court decide?

Application under S. 528 BNSS allowed; entire proceedings of Case No. 66150/2025 ('State Vs Ravindra Singh & other') arising out of the charge-sheet dated 05.12.2024 under sections 498A, 506 IPC quashed; compromise deed made part of the order. ¶26

Ravindra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Charge-Sheet dated 05.12.2024 under sections 498A, 506 IPC, Police Station-Bazar Khala, District Lucknow, in Case No. 66150/2025 ('State Vs Ravindra Singh & other'), along with consequential proceedings, are liable to be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 26.01.2026 between the parties.

¶11

Court's answer

The Court found that a compromise was entered into between the parties on 26.01.2026 and was verified on 09.03.2026, and, as per the statements of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the criminal proceedings arising out of Case No. 66150 of 2025.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the parties had compromised and no grievance remained to be agitated, further criminal proceedings in the criminal case were held liable to be set aside in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma, Gian Singh and Narindra Singh.

¶20

Key takeaways

The proceedings of Case No. 66150/2025, 'State Vs Ravindra Singh & other', are hereby quashed.ratio¶21
The compromise deed shall form part of the order.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Shree Prakash Singh, J.: Allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 1269 of 2026) by Ravindra Singh and another seeking quashing of the entire proceedings arising out of Charge-Sheet dated 05.12.2024 under sections 498A, 506 IPC, Police Station-Bazar Khala, District Lucknow, in Case No. 66150/2025 ('State Vs Ravindra Singh & other') pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-4, Court No.28, Lucknow. The dispute was matrimonial; the parties executed a compromise deed dated 26.01.2026, which this Court referred for verification by order dated 19.02.2026 in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 679 of 2026, and which was verified by the trial court vide order dated 09.03.2026. Holding that no grievance remained between the parties, the Court set aside further criminal proceedings, relying on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma v. State (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narindra Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, and quashed the proceedings of Case No. 66150/2025. The compromise deed was made part of the order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1269 of 2026

¶3

Ravindra Singh And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bheem Sen Verma, Ajay Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

Mr. Anuj Pandey, 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. Anuj Pandey, 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 entire proceedings arising out of Charge-Sheet dated 05.12.2024, under sections 498A,506 1.P.C., Police Station-Bazar Khala, District- Lucknow, as well as all consequential proceedings, pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-4, Court No.28, Lucknow, arising out of Case No. 66150/2025, 'State Vs Ravindra Singh & other, on the basis of compromise dated 26.01.2026, which has been duly verified by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-4, Court No.28, Lucknow vide order dated 09.03.2026.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the matter pertains to the matrimonial dispute and 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 26.01.2026. 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 applicants would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of

¶13

NA528 No. 1269 of 2026

¶14

¶15

the applicants.

¶16

Adding his arguments, he also submits that this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.02.2026 has referred the matter for compromise verification in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 679 of 2026 and in compliance of the aforesaid order, both the parties have appeared before the trial court and the compromise deed dated 26.01.2026 has been verified in presence of all concerned parties and the order of verification was passed on 09.03.2026 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Lucknow. He next added that now the matter has been compromised between the parties, and as such the criminal proceedings against the appliocants 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 26.01.2026 and said compromise has been verified on 09.03.2026 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal proceedings, arising out of aforementioned Case No. 66150 of 2025.

¶20

In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 26.10.2026 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 proceedings of Case No. 66150/2025, 'State Vs Ravindra Singh & other,are hereby quashed.

¶22

The compromise deed shall be part of this order.

¶23

NA528 No. 1269 of 2026

¶24

¶25

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶26

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶27

Consequences to follow.

¶28

April 6, 2026 AKS

¶29

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

Ravindra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Pradeep Kumar Alias Pradeep Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chhotelal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Faisal Beg and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Gaya Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mahesh Chandra Sharma @ Mahesh Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mangal Prasad Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another