Mohd. Saddam v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And

"Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Praveen Kumar Verma, Advocate on behalf of opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 16.07.2022 in Sessions Trial No. 1337 of 2023; State Vs. Mohd. Saddam, arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 2022, under Sections 366/376/506 IPC, Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow and summoning order dated 22.07.2022 as well as entire proceedings in pursuance thereof. Contention put-forth by learned counsel for the applicant is that at the very inception, the First Information Report was lodged. It is evident that the present applicant and the alleged prosecutrix were in love affairs with each other and, thereafter when this fact came into knowledge of the complainant, the First Information Report is lodged. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is also evident that the force is missing and the 2 A482 No. 8408 of 2025 ingredients of Section 376 IPC do not properly constitute. He further argued that good sense prolonged to the alleged prosecutrix and thereafter both the parties entered into a settlement which is reduced in writing on 19.03.2024, wherein they have stated that they do not want to pursue their cases furthermore. He submits that allowing the further criminal proceeding would amount to harassment and abuse of the process of law. He submitted that the matter may be referred to the trial court concerned and the trial court may be directed to verify the compromise deed dated

19.03.2024, certified copy of the settlement is appended as Annexure no. 8 to this application. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the prosecutrix has supported the version of counsel for the applicant and submitted that to meet the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings may be quashed at this stage. He submits that if the matter is referred to the trial court concerned, the prosecutrix including the complainant shall remain present to verify the compromise deed. The learned State Counsel has opposed the contentions aforesaid. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, particularly going through the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the mother of the prosecutrix has lodged the First Information Report, wherein her allegation is apparent that the prosecutrix was in affair with the applicant and statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. reveals that both were in love and once the matter came into the knowledge of the mother of the prosecutrix, she lodged the FIR but so far as the ingredients of Section 376 IPC are concerned, that do not properly constitute in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case. This Court has also noticed that the parties have entered into a settlement dated 19.03.2024 and they have decided not to pursue their cases furthermore. In fact, the prosecutrix is unmarried and in the event, she performs the marriage and is being called as a witness in the witness box from the trial court, certainly she will face trauma and it seems that considering all these circumstances, the prosecutrix has entered into the compromise. This Court is well aware with the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Madhukar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, [2025 3 A482 No. 8408 of 2025 INSC 819], wherein the law rendered in paragraph no. 7 is evident that allowing the criminal proceeding in such matters certainly prolonged the distress for all concerned, particularly the complainant/prosecutrix/victim and if there is no likelihood of a productive outcome, the same shall be a futile exercise. Considering all over the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion for referring the matter to the learned trial court concerned for verification of compromsie. Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. 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 deed, requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the same. 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. 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. For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Sessions Trial No. 1337 of 2023; State Vs. Mohd. Saddam, arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 2022, under Sections 366/376/506 IPC, Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow, shall remain stayed, so far as present applicant is concerned. The trial court is further directed for ensuring the fact that all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed are present before the trial court and a report with respect to this effect shall also be sent alongwith verification order. Office is directed to return back the original compromise deed dated

19.03.2024 to learned counsel for the applicant within a week." Vide the aforesaid order, the matter was referred for verification of the compromise deed entered into between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he is innocent and falsely been implicated. He next added that due to 4 A482 No. 8408 of 2025 misunderstanding the instant FIR has been lodged and thereafter the parties have settled their dispute and settlement deed has been executed, i.e., on 19.03.2024. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and has placed reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:- "9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant." Referring the aforesaid judgments, he submits that since the parties have settled the dispute and they have got married and they are living as husband and wife and there is no dispute further in between the parties. He next added that this Court vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed in Application under Section 482 No. 2564 of 2025, referred the matter to the trial court, wherein the compromise deed has been verified vide order dated 16.09.2025. He submits that further criminal proceedings against the present applicant, in such a situation, would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicant, as such, the same may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 3 has also supported the version of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties have entered into compromise in the light of ratio of judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari (supra) and thus the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the 5 A482 No. 8408 of 2025 parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 19.03.2025 and said compromise has been verified on

16.09.2025 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal case relating to Case Crime No. 226 of 2022. Accordingly, criminal proceedings with regard to Sessions Trial No. 1337 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 2022, under Sections 366/376/506 IPC, Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow, chargesheet dated 16.07.2022 and summoning order dated

22.07.2022 are hereby quashed. The compromise deed shall be part of this order. The application is allowed accordingly. Consigned to record. September 26, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Praveen Kumar Verma, Advocate on behalf of opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 16.07.2022 in Sessions Trial No. 1337 of 2023; State Vs. Mohd. Saddam, arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 2022, under Sections 366/376/506 IPC, Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow and summoning order dated 22.07.2022 as well as entire proceedings in pursuance thereof. Contention put-forth by learned counsel for the applicant is that at the very inception, the First Information Report was lodged. It is evident that the present applicant and the alleged prosecutrix were in love affairs with each other and, thereafter when this fact came into knowledge of the complainant, the First Information Report is lodged. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is also evident that the force is missing and the 2 A482 No. 8408 of 2025 ingredients of Section 376 IPC do not properly constitute. He further argued that good sense prolonged to the alleged prosecutrix and thereafter both the parties entered into a settlement which is reduced in writing on 19.03.2024, wherein they have stated that they do not want to pursue their cases furthermore. He submits that allowing the further criminal proceeding would amount to harassment and abuse of the process of law. He submitted that the matter may be referred to the trial court concerned and the trial court may be directed to verify the compromise deed dated

19.03.2024, certified copy of the settlement is appended as Annexure no. 8 to this application. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the prosecutrix has supported the version of counsel for the applicant and submitted that to meet the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings may be quashed at this stage. He submits that if the matter is referred to the trial court concerned, the prosecutrix including the complainant shall remain present to verify the compromise deed. The learned State Counsel has opposed the contentions aforesaid. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, particularly going through the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the mother of the prosecutrix has lodged the First Information Report, wherein her allegation is apparent that the prosecutrix was in affair with the applicant and statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. reveals that both were in love and once the matter came into the knowledge of the mother of the prosecutrix, she lodged the FIR but so far as the ingredients of Section 376 IPC are concerned, that do not properly constitute in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case. This Court has also noticed that the parties have entered into a settlement dated 19.03.2024 and they have decided not to pursue their cases furthermore. In fact, the prosecutrix is unmarried and in the event, she performs the marriage and is being called as a witness in the witness box from the trial court, certainly she will face trauma and it seems that considering all these circumstances, the prosecutrix has entered into the compromise. This Court is well aware with the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Madhukar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, [2025 3 A482 No. 8408 of 2025 INSC 819], wherein the law rendered in paragraph no. 7 is evident that allowing the criminal proceeding in such matters certainly prolonged the distress for all concerned, particularly the complainant/prosecutrix/victim and if there is no likelihood of a productive outcome, the same shall be a futile exercise. Considering all over the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion for referring the matter to the learned trial court concerned for verification of compromsie. Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. 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 deed, requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the same. 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. 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. For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Sessions Trial No. 1337 of 2023; State Vs. Mohd. Saddam, arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 2022, under Sections 366/376/506 IPC, Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow, shall remain stayed, so far as present applicant is concerned. The trial court is further directed for ensuring the fact that all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed are present before the trial court and a report with respect to this effect shall also be sent alongwith verification order. Office is directed to return back the original compromise deed dated

19.03.2024 to learned counsel for the applicant within a week." Vide the aforesaid order, the matter was referred for verification of the compromise deed entered into between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he is innocent and falsely been implicated. He next added that due to 4 A482 No. 8408 of 2025 misunderstanding the instant FIR has been lodged and thereafter the parties have settled their dispute and settlement deed has been executed, i.e., on 19.03.2024. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and has placed reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:- "9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant." Referring the aforesaid judgments, he submits that since the parties have settled the dispute and they have got married and they are living as husband and wife and there is no dispute further in between the parties. He next added that this Court vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed in Application under Section 482 No. 2564 of 2025, referred the matter to the trial court, wherein the compromise deed has been verified vide order dated 16.09.2025. He submits that further criminal proceedings against the present applicant, in such a situation, would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicant, as such, the same may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 3 has also supported the version of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties have entered into compromise in the light of ratio of judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari (supra) and thus the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the 5 A482 No. 8408 of 2025 parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 19.03.2025 and said compromise has been verified on

16.09.2025 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal case relating to Case Crime No. 226 of 2022. Accordingly, criminal proceedings with regard to Sessions Trial No. 1337 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 2022, under Sections 366/376/506 IPC, Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow, chargesheet dated 16.07.2022 and summoning order dated

22.07.2022 are hereby quashed. The compromise deed shall be part of this order. The application is allowed accordingly. Consigned to record. September 26, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench