HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10120 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Sri Sajjad Husain, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 41/16, dated 22.03.2016 and cognizance order dated 24.08.2016 summoning order dated 24.08.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1798 of 2016 (State Vs. Anoop Kumar Verma) arising out of Case Crime No. 54A/2016 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC, Police Station Indira Nagar, District Lucknow pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Lucknow in terms of compromise dated 24.11.2025 and stay the operation and effect of charge sheet no. 41/16, dated 22.03.2016 and cognizance order dated 24.08.2016 summoning order dated 24.08.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1798 of 2016 (State Vs. Anoop Kumar Verma) arising out of Case Crime No. 54A/2016 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC, Police Station Indira Nagar, District Lucknow pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Lucknow in terms of compromise dated 24.11.2025 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise which has taken place Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kulsoom Firoz, Badar Iftikhar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sajjad Husain Anoop Verma @ Anoop Kumar Verma .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) between the parties is also filed before this Court as Annexure No. 4 to the application. He further submits that the offences in which the compromise is sought are not heinous and the compromise can take place in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (10) SCC 303. 5. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the trial court concerned as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. 6. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the trial 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. 7. The court concerned 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. 8. For a period of one month, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. 9. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed, if any, to the learned counsel for the applicant, after taking the photocopy of the same. December 3, 2025 Pratima A482 No. 10120 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench