Mr. A @ Mr. N Thru. His Mother Mrs. S And ... vs State Of U.P. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. ...
- Neutral2026:AHC-LKO:32929
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the parties to criminal proceedings involving offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC have entered into a compromise, and both the State and the accused have agreed not to proceed further, the High Court may quash the charge sheet and cognizance order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, as the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process when the parties themselves seek settlement.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed to quash the Charge Sheet No. 01, dated 28-09-2024 and Impugned order of Cognizance and Summoning order dated 24-12-2024, passed by Ld. Juvenile Justice Board Lucknow in Inquiry no.432/2024, (State vs Mr.A @ Mr.N & Anr) Arising out of Case Crime No 0070/2024, Under Section 323,504,506 I.P.C, Police Station - Talkatora, District Lucknow, in the light of compromise dated 21.01.2026.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to certain misunderstanding, the instant FIR was lodged against the applicants and thereafter the parties sat together and has amicably settled their dispute which has been reduced in writing on 21.01.2026. He added that thereafter the applicants filed the instant application for direction to the trial Court to verify the compromise deed and in compliance of the order dated 02.02.2026, the verification was done and report has been submitted to this Court. He submits that further criminal proceeding in the instant matter would amount to harassment and thus the impugned criminal proceeding may be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that parties have amicable settled their dispute and the opposite party no. 2 has no grievance, hence, criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.
5. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the contention aforesaid.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 21.01.2026 and said compromise has been verified on 19.02.2026 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal case.
7. In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise and no grievance remains to be agitated and as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
8. Accordingly, criminal proceedings with regard to impugned Charge Sheet No. 01, dated 28-09-2024 and Impugned order of Cognizance and Summoning order dated 24-12-2024, passed by Ld. Juvenile Justice Board Lucknow in Inquiry no.432/2024, (State vs Mr.A @ Mr.N & Anr) Arising out of Case Crime No 0070/2024, Under Section 323,504,506 I.P.C, Police Station - Talkatora, District Lucknow, are hereby quashed.
9. The compromise shall be part of this order.
10. The application is allowed accordingly.
11. Consigned to record.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
May 7, 2026
V. Sinha
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free