Allahabad High Court
/955/2022 of PRATYUSHA RAI SRIVASTAVA Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME, LKO. AND 4 OTHERS on 19 November 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 955 of 2022 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. C.M.Application No. IA/2/2025 (Application for Withdrawal of the Criminal Revision) 1. Heard. 2. It is stated that in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, a copy of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 955 of 2022
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
C.M.Application No. IA/2/2025 (Application for Withdrawal of the Criminal Revision)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard.
2. It is stated that in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 of the application for withdrawal in terms of which, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6811 of 2022 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Indira Nagar, District- Lucknow has been quashed vide order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 10240 of 2023 (Rachit Kulshreshtha vs. State of U.P. And Another), the revisionist wants to withdraw present revision challenging the order dated 05.07.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 6811 of 2022 whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Court No. 28, Lucknow, declined to summon the opposite party Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and as such, present application be allowed and the revision be dismissed as withdrawn.
3. To oppose the aforesaid prayer, no one appeared on behalf of opposite parties.
4. Taking note of aforesaid submissions as also the facts of the case, the application is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed.
5. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn. November 19, 2025 Vinay/- Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Saurabh Gautam, Anand Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Nishant Shukla (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Pratyusha Rai Srivastava .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench