Sumit vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ...
- Neutral2026:AHC-LKO:32710
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings is filed on the basis of an alleged compromise between the parties, the trial court must issue notices requiring the personal presence of all signatories to the compromise, verify the compromise in their presence, and prepare a report documenting such verification before the compromise can be accepted as a basis for any relief. A compromise in criminal proceedings cannot be verified by the High Court in the first instance; such verification must be conducted by the trial court concerned, as it is best placed to ascertain whether the parties have genuinely compromised the matter. Where a petition for quashing is filed on the basis of an unverified compromise, the High Court may stay the criminal proceedings for a limited period to permit the trial court to verify the compromise, examine whether all parties named in the charge-sheet are signatories to it, and report its findings, after which the applicant may approach the High Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Sri Rushida Farheen, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the same is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant application has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 03.10.2022 as well as the summoning order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 27 Lucknow (State vs. Sumit), arising out of Case Crime No. 95/2022, under Sections 363/366 I.P.C. Police Station- Saadatganj, District- Lucknow in the light of compromise dated 18.03.2026.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 18.03.2026, which has been annexed as annexure no.4 to the instant application. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicant is the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicant and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicant and the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped.
6. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.
7. Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.
8. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the 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.
9. 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.
10. For a period of three months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 03.10.2022 as well as the summoning order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 27 Lucknow (State vs. Sumit), arising out of Case Crime No. 95/2022, under Sections 363/366 I.P.C. Police Station- Saadatganj, District- Lucknow, shall remain stayed so far as applicant is concerned.
11. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the charge-sheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.
12. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicant, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
May 6, 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