[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Kumar Nishad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ... on 10 December, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:82498
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10356 of 2025
Ramesh Kumar Nishad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Shubham Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. Power along with short counter affidavit filed today by Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.
The present application has been filed with the following main prayer:
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.4046 of 2023 (Old Case No. -2218 of 2012) (State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Nishad); arising out of Charge Sheet No. 37 of 2009 dated 09.08.2009 in pursuance of Case Crime No./ First Information Report No.240 of 2009, Under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., relating to Police Station -Maharuwa, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending before Learned Civil Judge Senior Division/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar as well as summoning order dated 09.10.2009 and Non Bailable Warrant order dated 07.10.2025 passed by Learned Civil Judge Senior Division/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar (contained as Annexure No.1 and 2) in the light of compromise dated 07.11.2025. (Contained as Annexure No.8), in the interest of law and justice."
In this case, FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed against the applicant, but learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been arrived between them dated 7.11.2025 (Original copy of the same is appended as annexure No.8 to the application). Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon Para-7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, Criminal Appeal, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7212 of 2025, 2025INSC 819, and other connected matter, decided on 14.7.2025, which reads as under:
"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 resolved 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."
Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, before which, the case is pending. Therefore, the compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court below itself.
Counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 has no objection, in case compromise takes place.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned court within two weeks from today and file/pursue their compromise application. The court below is directed to pass an order on the said compromise application and all formalities will be completed within eight weeks from that date.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it or has been already filed, 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. 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 applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
For a period of three months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
Registry is directed to return the original copy of the compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicant after taking photocopy of the same.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.)
December 10, 2025
Sachin
