High Court · 2025

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by Shri Surya Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and short counter affidavit filed today by Shri Abhishek Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 are taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings pursuant to Sessions Trial No.43 of 2019 "State versus Ajay Kumar Patel and others", arising out of Case Crime No.828 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 354(Kha), 452 & 380 of IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh including the impugned chargesheet (1) dated impugned summoning order dated 02.04.2019, 06.01.2019, impugned FIR dated 26.08.2018 and stay the entire proceedings, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-1/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Pratapgarh. the applicants submits

4. Learned counsel that under misconception, the FIR was lodged whereas no such incident has ever taken place. He submits that good since prevailed to the victim as well as the complainant and they settled their disputes. In addition, he submits that the victim as well as the complainant, the elder sister of the victim, have performed marriage prior to four years and they have settled their marital life and allowing further criminal proceeding would create hindrance in their personal life and no fruitful purpose would be sub-served.

5. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No.2957 of 2025, Madhukar 2 A482 No. 6811 of 2025 and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others and has referred paragraph 7 of the judgment, which is quoted hereunder:- "7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More Importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome" resolved

6. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment above said, and therefore, the criminal proceeding against the applicants is unsustainable. the original copy of

7. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the applicants have appended the compromise deed dated 21.08.2025 alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed today and requested that the learned trial court may be directed to verify the compromise deed, within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have no objection to the contentions aforesaid and submits that the parties have settled their dispute and further, the opposite party nos.2 and 3, the victim as well as the complainant, have settled their marital life while performing marriage. Thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicants may be dropped.

9. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that the case of the present applicants is whether the parties have, in fact, settled the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the trial court as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court, thus, the matter is hereby referred to learned trial court concerned for verification. 3 A482 No. 6811 of 2025

10. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

11. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

12. For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the Sessions Trial No.43 of 2019 "State versus Ajay Kumar Patel and others", arising out of Case Crime No.828 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 354(Kha), 452 & 380 of IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh, shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned.

13. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.

14. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by Shri Surya Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and short counter affidavit filed today by Shri Abhishek Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 are taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings pursuant to Sessions Trial No.43 of 2019 "State versus Ajay Kumar Patel and others", arising out of Case Crime No.828 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 354(Kha), 452 & 380 of IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh including the impugned chargesheet (1) dated impugned summoning order dated 02.04.2019, 06.01.2019, impugned FIR dated 26.08.2018 and stay the entire proceedings, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-1/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Pratapgarh. the applicants submits

4. Learned counsel that under misconception, the FIR was lodged whereas no such incident has ever taken place. He submits that good since prevailed to the victim as well as the complainant and they settled their disputes. In addition, he submits that the victim as well as the complainant, the elder sister of the victim, have performed marriage prior to four years and they have settled their marital life and allowing further criminal proceeding would create hindrance in their personal life and no fruitful purpose would be sub-served.

5. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No.2957 of 2025, Madhukar 2 A482 No. 6811 of 2025 and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others and has referred paragraph 7 of the judgment, which is quoted hereunder:- "7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More Importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome" resolved

6. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment above said, and therefore, the criminal proceeding against the applicants is unsustainable. the original copy of

7. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the applicants have appended the compromise deed dated 21.08.2025 alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed today and requested that the learned trial court may be directed to verify the compromise deed, within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have no objection to the contentions aforesaid and submits that the parties have settled their dispute and further, the opposite party nos.2 and 3, the victim as well as the complainant, have settled their marital life while performing marriage. Thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicants may be dropped.

9. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that the case of the present applicants is whether the parties have, in fact, settled the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the trial court as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court, thus, the matter is hereby referred to learned trial court concerned for verification. 3 A482 No. 6811 of 2025

10. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

11. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

12. For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the Sessions Trial No.43 of 2019 "State versus Ajay Kumar Patel and others", arising out of Case Crime No.828 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 354(Kha), 452 & 380 of IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh, shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned.

13. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.

14. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench