Allahabad High Court
Arvind Yadav @ Arvind Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 27 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:50751-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7237 of 2025
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.
1. Heard.
2. This Court has passed the order dated 14.08.2025, which reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.D. Bhatt, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties no.1, 2 & 3 and Sri Suhaib Ashraf alongwith Sri Vaibhav Mishra, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.4. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned first information report lodged by the Opposite Party No. 4 on 13.06.2025 vide Case Crime No. 0218 of 2025, Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, lodged at Police Station: Atrauli, District- Hardoi, so far as it relates to the Petitioner in view of the compromise dated 04.08.2025 which has been signed between the complainant and the petitioner, in the interest of Law and Justice.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party not to arrest or adopt any coercive measures against the petitioner on the basis of impugned first information report lodged by the Opposite Party No.4 on 13.06.2025 vide Case Crime No. 0218 of 2025, Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, lodged at Police Station: Atrauli, District- Hardoi, so far as it relates to the Petitioner, during the pendency of Writ Petition, in the interest of Law and Justice."
3. Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner has apprised the facts of the case briefly and has submitted that the present petitioner was the Investigating Officer in an FIR being lodged by opposite party no.4. After completing the investigation, the petitioner filed charge sheet against the accused persons. Thereafter, without having any cogent material or evidence, opposite party no.4 levelled allegation against the present petitioner that he was demanding some bribe to file charge sheet though there is no evidence of demand of bribe or receiving the same.
4. Now, the parties have entered into compromise as the original copy thereof has been enclosed as Annexure No.5 with the writ petition. In such compromise, opposite party no.4 has stated that on account of ill advice of the others, she lodged the FIR against the petitioner though the petitioner had never demanded any bribe from her. It has been further indicated in the aforesaid compromise that the parties have entered into compromise without any coercion or undue influence and such compromise has been arrived on the basis of free consent. In support of his contention, Sri Pranjal Krishna has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in re; N.S. Gnaneshwaran Etc. v. Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1257.
5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.4 has also submitted that opposite party no.4 has entered into the aforesaid compromise deed by free will and without any coercion and she does not wish to prosecute the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR.
6. Both the learned counsels for the parties have stated that considering the aforesaid requests, the writ petition may be decided finally.
7. Sri Bhatt, learned AGA, has also stated that if the parties have entered into compromise, any appropriate order may be passed after getting the contents and parties of the aforesaid compromise deed verified.
8. Therefore, the petitioner and the opposite party no.4 shall appear in person before the Senior Registrar of this Court on 20.08.2025.
9. Paper-book of this petition shall also be sent before the Senior Registrar of this Court for the purposes to verify the contents of the aforesaid compromise deed and parties thereof. Thereafter, the Senior Registrar shall submit report before this Court by the next date of listing.
10. List this case on 27.08.2025.
11. Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the FIR/ Case Crime No.0218 of 2025 (supra).
12. When the case is next listed, names of Sri Suhaib Ashraf and Sri Vaibhav Mishra shall be printed in the cause list as counsel for opposite party no.4."
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before the Senior Registrar of this Court on 20.08.2025 and the Senior Registrar submitted verification report dated 20.08.2025, which reads as under:-
"Vide Hon'ble Court's order dated 14-08-2025, Petitioner and Opposite Party No.4 were directed to appear before the undersigned today for verification of compromise deed. The said compromise deed dated 04.08.2025 has been annexed in original as Annexure No. 5 to the petition.
Today, petitioner namely Arvind Yadav @ Arvind Singh Yadav son of Sahab Singh Yadav alongwith his learned counsel Shri Pranjal Krishna, Advocate AND opposite party No. 4 namely Smt. Sushma Devi wife of Khushi Ram Yadav alongwith her learned counsel Shri Suhaib Ashraf, Advocate are present before me. Vakalatnama of counsels for both the parties are on record. The proof of identity i.e. original Aadhar Cards are produced by both the parties, at the time of verification.
The contents of the said compromise deed have been read over and explained to both the parties to the compromise deed and they have accepted the execution of the same according to their free will and as a token thereof they have affixed their photographs, put L.T.I/R.T.I. and signatures, which are duly attested and verified by their respective counsels.
In view of the said facts, the compromise between petitioner namely Arvind Yadav @ Arvind Singh Yadav son of Sahab Singh Yadav AND opposite party No. 4 namely Smt. Sushma Devi wife of Khushi Ram Yadav is being verified by me today i.e. 20 day of August, 2025.
The report is submitted before Hon'ble Court for orders.."
4. Learned counsels for the parties have stated that they are not willing to contest the case pursuant to the impugned FIR dated 13.06.2025, lodged by opposite party No.4, bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0218 of 2025, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned FIR may be set aside/quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
6. Learned A.G.A. has not disputed the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and the compromise deed has been verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court, therefore, he has stated that any appropriate order, in the interest of justice, may be passed.
7. The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed that even if the offence(s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
8. Not only the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak, (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish, (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup, (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh, (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the First Information Report dated 13.06.2025, lodged by opposite party No.4, bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0218 of 2025, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi is hereby quashed in respect of the present petitioner on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
9. The petition is, therefore, allowed.
August 27, 2025
(Manoj K.)/RBS
