A482/9099/2025 of KHALID FAROOQI Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. THE PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 2 OTHERS on 11 December 2025

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Shri Pranjal Singh, Amicus Curiae for respondent no. 2. From the record, it is evident that Rohit Mishra is also arrayed as respondent no. 3 and the letter of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow as well as report of Sub-Inspector, P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow reveal that the information about the case has been given to him, but none has put in appearance on his behalf.

3. The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 05.09.2023 as well as summoning order dated 16.04.2025 passed in F.I.R. No. 221 of 2023, under Sections 279, 323, 342, 365, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow as well as its entire proceedings.

4. In pursuance of the earlier order dated 27.11.2025, applicant as well as respondent no. 2 are present before this Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to some misunderstanding, the F.I.R. was lodged and the Investigating Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Prakash, Anshul Verma, Surya Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pranjal Singh, Sri Pranjal Singh Khalid Farooqi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Officer also submitted the charge sheet in mechanical manner. It is further submitted that now the issue has been resolved in between the parties by way of settlement agreement dated 10.12.2025. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicants, but does not dispute the fact that the issue has been resolved in between the parties. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent no. 2 also concedes the fact that as the matter has been settled in between the parties, respondent no. 2 does not want prosecute the applicants.

7. Respondent no. 2, who is present before this Court, also categorically states that she does not want to prosecute the applicant and the issue has been settled in between them outside the Court. He also states that settlement agreement has already been executed in between the parties on 10.12.2025 and he has no objection, in case, the impugned proceedings are quashed.

8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned Amicus Curiae for respondent no. 2 and going through the contents of the F.I.R., application, settlement agreement dated 10.12.2025 executed in between the parties as well as other relevant documents including the statement of respondent no. 2 given before this Court, it is evident that respondent no. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicant. In view of above, this Court is of the view that the trial of the case in question would be futile one.

9. In such circumstances, charge sheet dated 05.09.2023 as well as summoning order dated 16.04.2025 passed in F.I.R. No. 221 of 2023, under Sections 279, 323, 342, 365, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow as well as its entire proceedings are A482 No. 9099 of 2025

hereby quashed.

10. The application stands allowed.

11. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned, forthwith.

12. Senior Registrar is directed to get the payment of Rs.15,000/- done to Shri Pranjal Singh for his assistance to this Court in the present matter as Amicus Curiae. December 11, 2025 VKS A482 No. 9099 of 2025

(Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench