Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 170034 (ALL)

AVINASH MAURYA AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/9740/2024 · 2025-01-10

Om Prakash Shukla, Vivek Chaudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2000-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9740 of 2024 Petitioner :- Avinash Maurya And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Kinkar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nasreen Bano Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Nasreen Bano, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 10.12.2024 bearing Case Crime No.1125 of 2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 316(2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki. Petitioners also pray for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case crime number. 3. On 19.12.2024, parties were directed to appear before the Senior Registrar for verification of compromise. 4. The report of the Senior Registrar of this Court dated 06.01.2025 is on record, according to which, he has verified the compromise on 06.01.2025. The original compromise is on record which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 5. According to the terms of the compromise, parties have decided to withdraw all the cases filed by them against each other including F.I.R. dated 10.12.2024 bearing Case Crime No.1125 of 2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 316(2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki. 6. Learned counsel for the parties state that as the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the respondent No.4 does not want to pursue this case against the petitioners. 7. Intent is clear, the respondent No.4, who is a signatory to the compromise, does not want to press the FIR, therefore, no purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings even if charge sheet has been filed before the court below to go on considering the nature of the dispute. 8. Accordingly, the impugned FIR, which is the basis to serve consequential proceedings of investigation and thereafter filing of charge sheet, if any, is hereby quashed. Consequently, all proceedings taken consequent to the lodging of the FIR including charge sheet, if any, filed before the court below stand quashed. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 10. The Senior Registrar of this Court shall communicate this order to the court concerned for correcting its record, accordingly. 11. Learned AGA shall communicate this order to the investigating officer. [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Vivek Chaudhary, J.] Order Date :- 10.1.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench