Divyanshu Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1662 of 2026

¶3

Divyanshu Yadav And 4 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Kumar, Dhananjai Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 16

¶9

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶12

By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 0170893 of 2025, State Versus Divyanshu Yadav and others, arising out of order dated-19.11.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 31 Lucknow in pursuance of Charge Sheet No. 1 of 2025 dated-01.05.2025 arising out of Case Crime No/F.I.R. No. 156 of 2025, Under Section-190, 191(2), 115(2), 352 of BNS 2023 (Old Section-149, 147, 323, 504 I.P.C.), relating to Police Station-Bakshi Ka Talab, District-Lucknow pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 31 Lucknow as well as summoning order dated-19.11.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow so for as it relates to the applicants (contained as Annexure No. 2 & 3) in the light of compromise dated-04.02.2026 (Contained as Annexure No. 5), including quash the entire proceedings initiated in

¶13

NA528 No. 1662 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

pursuance thereof, on the ground that the parties have already settled their dispute by the way of compromise as per verification order dated-18.03.2026 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Seventh, Court No. 31, Lucknow.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that 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 04.02.2026. 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 the applicants.

¶17

Adding his arguments, he also submits that this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.02.2026 has referred the matter for compromise verification in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 617 of 2026 and in compliance of the aforesaid order, both the parties have appeared before the trial court and the compromise deed dated 04.02.2026 has been verified in presence of all concerned parties and the order of verification was passed on 18.03.2026 by the learned learned trial court. He next added that now the matter has been compromised in between the parties, and as such the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

¶18

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.

¶19

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between

¶21

NA528 No. 1662 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

the parties on 04.02.2026 and said compromise has been verified on 26.02.2026 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶24

In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 04.02.2026 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.

¶25

Resultantly, the entire criminal proceedings against the applicants Criminal Case No. 0170893 of 2025, State Versus Divyanshu Yadav and others, arising out of order dated-19.11.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 31 Lucknow in pursuance of Charge Sheet No. 1 of 2025 dated01.05.2025 arising out of Case Crime No/F.I.R. No. 156 of 2025, Under Section-190, 191(2), 115(2), 352 of BNS 2023 (Old Section149, 147, 323, 504 I.P.C.), relating to Police Station-Bakshi Ka Talab, District-Lucknow,are hereby quashed.

¶26

The compromise deed shall be part of this order.

¶27

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶28

Consequences to follow.

¶29

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶30

April 28, 2026 AKS

¶31

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

Divyanshu Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divyanshu Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sayara Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Pankaj Tiwari and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Mohammad Naim and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Chandesh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another