Disposed¶10

Mahendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2026NA528/47200/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 47200 of 2025; Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P.; interim stay of coercive action; compromise dated 18.09.2025; Annexure no.10; verification of compromise by ADJ/FTC Basti; Sessions Trial No. 929 of 2024; Case Crime No. 14/2022; sections 323, 427, 504, 506, 308 IPC; P.S. Dubaulia, District Basti; next listing week commencing 09.03.2026; order dated 27.01.2026; Saurabh Srivastava, J.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: coercive action against the applicants stayed till the next date of listing (week commencing 09.03.2026); original compromise dated 18.09.2025 returned for filing before ADJ 1st/FTC, Basti within 15 days, to be verified by that court within four weeks thereafter with a report to the High Court; matter kept pending for adjudication on the verification report. ¶10

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether coercive action against the applicants in pursuance of Sessions Trial No. 929 of 2024 (arising out of Case Crime No. 14/2022, P.S. Dubaulia, District Basti) should be withheld while the compromise dated 18.09.2025 between the parties is filed and verified by the trial court.

¶10

Court's answer

Office is directed to return the original copy of the compromise dated 18.09.2025, appended as Annexure no.10, to the office of learned counsel for the applicants.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the parties are requested to direct their respective clients to prefer the original copy of the compromise dated 18.09.2025 before the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st, Basti/concerned court within 15 days.

¶7

Key takeaways

If the compromise deed is filed within the stipulated period, the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC, Basti shall verify it in the presence of both parties within four weeks thereafter and send its report to the High Court through the Registry on or before the next date.ratio¶8
The case is to be listed in the week commencing 09.03.2026 along with the verification report.ratio¶9
Interim protection: till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be initiated against the applicants in pursuance to Sessions Trial No. 929 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 14/2022 under sections 323, 427, 504, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Dubaulia, District Basti.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), order dated 27.01.2026 in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 47200 of 2025, Mahendra Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another: counsel reported that the parties had entered into a compromise on 18.09.2025, the original of which (Annexure no.10) was with the application. The Court directed the Office to return the original compromise to applicants' counsel, to be filed before the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st, Basti/concerned court within 15 days; on filing, ADJ/FTC, Basti is to verify the compromise in the presence of both parties within four weeks and send a report to the High Court through the Registry. Case listed in the week commencing 09.03.2026 with the report. Till the next date, no coercive action is to be initiated against the applicants in pursuance of Sessions Trial No. 929 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 14/2022 under sections 323, 427, 504, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Dubaulia, District Basti. Registrar (Compliance) to serve the order on the trial court; final adjudication deferred pending the verification report.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 47200 of 2025

¶2

Versus Mahendra Singh And Another	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Sachan	Singh, Saurabh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 75

¶4

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶5

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that both the parties have already been entered into a compromise on dated 18.09.2025 but the same has not been preferred before learned court concerned since the original copy of the compromise is available with the instant application.

¶6

Office is hereby directed to return the original copy of the compromise dated 18.09.2025, which is appended as Annexure no.10, to the office of learned counsel for the applicants.

¶7

Learned counsels for the parties are hereby requested to direct their respective clients to prefer original copy of the compromise dated 18.09.2025 before learned court of Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st, Basti/concerned court within 15 days from today.

¶8

In case, the said compromise deed is filed within the stipulated period, learned court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC, Basti shall verify the same in presence of both the parties within a period of four weeks thereafter and send its report to this Court through the Registry on or before the next date.

¶9

List this case in week commencing 09.03.2026 along with said report.

¶10

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be initiated against the applicants in pursuance to Sessions Trial No. 929 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime no.

¶11

NA528 No. 47200 of 2025

¶12

¶13

14/2022 under sections 323, 427, 504, 506, 308 IPC, PSDubaulia, District Basti.

¶14

Registrar (Compliance) is hereby directed to serve a copy of this order upon learned court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC, Basti and after receiving verification report, same may be placed in record of this matter, so that the matter may be adjudicated on the basis of verification report.

¶15

January 27, 2026

¶16

Rakesh

¶17

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ajay vs State of U.P. and Another

Bulbul Kinnar vs State of U.P. and Another

Nanha Buddha @ Om Prakash vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Yunus vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shrikant Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another