Pradeep Kumar Kori v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Court No. - 2 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5472 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Kori Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajeet Verma,Virendra Patel Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.

¶2By means of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the F.I.R. dated 04.05.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 0454/2025, under Sections 316(2), 115(2), 352, 109, 351,

(3), 333, 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki, on the basis of compromise dated

10.06.2025 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 (Annexure - 3 to the writ petition).

¶3It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court by means of order dated 23.06.2025, directed the parties to appear before Senior Registrar of this Court on

24.06.2025 for verification of the compromise. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Senior Registrar on the date fixed and the Senior Registrar of this Court has verified the compromise entered into between the parties and a report dated 24.06.2025 to this effect has been submitted for perusal of this Court. Therefore, the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case may be quashed in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 have compromised the dispute and as such, respondent No. 4 does not want to press the present case against the petitioner.

¶5Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and learned Additional Government Advocate have stated that they have no objection in case the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶6Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

¶8In this regard, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the proceedings, as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.

¶9In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and it does not affect the public at large, and it would only amount to private dispute between the parties and no useful purpose would be served by allowing the petitioner to be prosecuted in the said case/ trial, therefore, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of F.I.R. dated

04.05.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 0454/2025, under Sections 316(2), 115(2), 352, 109, 351,(3), 333, 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki are hereby quashed. (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 27.6.2025 (Manoj K.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench