Saif Shandar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2110 of 2026

Saif Shandar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Taiyab, Akram Azad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

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

¶11

By means of the instant application, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the proceeding of Case Crime No. 0151/2024, State of U.P. Versus Saif Shandar Under Section 3,4 Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Divorce) act, 1986 concerning Police Station Madeyganj, District Lucknow, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 37, Lucknow, in the light of compromise dated 29.09.2025 entered into petitioner and opposite party No.2, entered into petitioner and opposite party No.2, which has been duly verified by the concerned court.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant 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 29.09.2025. Adding his arguments, he submits that now the parties

¶13

NA528 No. 2110 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

have put their all disputes at rest by way of executing compromise deed and thus further criminal proceedings against the present applicant would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicant.

¶16

Adding his arguments, he also submits that this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.04.2026 has referred the matter for compromise verification in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 917 of 2026 and in compliance of the aforesaid order, both the parties have appeared before the trial court and the compromise deed dated 29.09.2025 has been verified in presence of all concerned parties and the order of verification was passed on 06.05.2026 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 applicant 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 13.02.2026 and said compromise has been verified on 25.03.2026 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal proceedings against the applicant.

¶20

In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 29.09.2025 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

¶21

NA528 No. 2110 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

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.

¶24

Resultantly, the entire criminal proceedings against the applicant in Case Crime No. 0151/2024, State of U.P. Versus Saif Shandar Under Section 3,4 Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Divorce) act, 1986 concerning Police Station Madeyganj, District Lucknow, are hereby quashed.

¶25

The compromise deed shall be part of this order.

¶26

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶27

Consequences to follow.

¶28

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶29

May 26, 2026 AKS

¶30

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

Saif Shandar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saif Shandar 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

Dharm Chandra Kaushal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Moharram Ali and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Mangal Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Kumar vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Aman Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Surendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another