# Rekha Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 84
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-29
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 9464 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rekha-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53820
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

cases separately but did not order that the
sentence shall run concurrently. Therefore, the
petitioner is compelled to undergo 5 years
incarceration without being given an opportunity
of proper trial merely recording conviction, on
the basis of confession.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227 - The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 427 - Transactions related
to the offences is not the same -
Subsequent
sentence
should
run
consecutively
-
In
absence
of
any
direction as per general rule enunciated in
Section 427(1), the subsequent sentence
will not run concurrently but consecutively
- Petition dismissed.

Held- Petitioner has been convicted separately
in five different incidents having different case
crime
numbers
lodged
by
various
first
informants and all the five cases have been
decided by the separate judgments though, on
a single date, there is no illegality in the order
impugned. (E-15)

Case Law C

## Text

84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Constitution of India. Opening of
'History-sheet' must be on the basis of
subjective satisfaction of the competent
authority, and the subjective satisfaction
must be armed with legal provisions vis-avis well reasoned and speaking decision,
failing which it would be hit by Article 14
of the Constitution of India being arbitrary
in nature and not permissible in law. The
impugned action in the present case, prima
facie, does not qualify the aforesaid
parameters for the reason that nothing has
been indicated in the instructions dated
13/14.08.2025 as to what decision has been
taken by the Superintendent of Police after
the acquittal of the petitioner in Case Crime
No.1125 of 2008; even reference of the
acquittal order dated 06.04.2022 has not
been
given
in
the
said
communication/letter, the same is not
appreciated.

33. Hence, instead of quashing the
impugned 'History-sheet of the petitioner,
we find it appropriate to grant liberty to the
petitioner to prefer a comprehensive
representation
afresh
before
the
Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar
(respondent no.2), raising all pleas and
grounds which are available to him. In case
such a representation along with a copy of
the earlier representation and copy of this
order is filed by the petitioner before the
respondent no.2 within a period of two
weeks from today, the Superintendent of
Police (respondent no.2) shall consider the
same in the light of the observations made
herein-above and shall pass a reasoned and
speaking order, strictly in consonance with
the relevant regulations of the U.P. Police
Regulations.
The
second
respondent/Superintendent of Police shall
deal with each and every ground raised by
the petitioner through his representation
after summoning the relevant records from
concerned police station, within a period of
three weeks from the date of filing of the
said representation.

34. It is expected that in the
meanwhile,
petitioner
shall
not
be
subjected to any unnecessary harassment
by the police authorities in pursuance of the
History-sheet as noted herein-above.

35. The present writ petition is
disposed of with the aforesaid observations
and directions.

36. No order as to cost
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 84
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9464 of 2025

Rekha Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prashant Yadav, Rajeev Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
Issue for Consideration
The
alleged
compromise
deed
all
the
respondent-accused are not the signatory,
therefore, it was not properly verified, therefore,
the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227 - The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 320 - in the compromise
deed all the respondent-accused are not
the
signatory
-
Section
320
Cr.P.C.
8 All. Rekha Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
85
provides that the offence u/s 323 can be
compounded by the person who has been
hurt, and it does not require the court's
permission - Petition dismissed.

Held- Section 320 Cr.P.C. provides that the
offence u/s 323 can be compounded by the
person who has been hurt, and it does not
require the court's permission and section 506
IPC can be compounded by the person who is
intimidated, therefore, there is no requirement
of the signature of the respondent-accused.
(Para 4 & 6) ( E-15)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950, The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Offence u/s 323 can be compounded; does not
require the court's permission

Case Arising From
Order dated 01.07.2025 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Ist (Offence against
women), District Mathura in Criminal Revision
No. 595 of 2024 (Rekha Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
and others) as well as the order dated
04.11.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mathura in Criminal Case No. 10967
of 2020 (State Vs. Surendra Pal Yadav and
others) arising out of Case Crime No. 483 of
2014, u/s 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Highway, District
Mathura.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prashant Yadav,
Rajeev Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.

2. The present petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India has been filed
with the prayer to set aside the impugned
order dated 01.07.2025 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Ist (Offence against
women), District Mathura in Criminal
Revision No. 595 of 2024 (Rekha Yadav Vs.
State of U.P. and others) as well as the
impugned order dated 04.11.2023 passed by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in
Criminal Case No. 10967 of 2020 (State Vs.
Surendra Pal Yadav and others) arising out of
Case Crime No. 483 of 2014, u/s 323, 506
IPC, P.S. Highway, District Mathura.

3. It has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
was a signatory to a compromise dated
20.07.2023
filed
before
the
Judicial
Magistrate, Mathura wherein the petitioner
and the other parties had entered into the
compromise.
Pursuant
to
the
said
compromise, the the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Mathura
vide
order
dated
04.11.2023 had compounded the offence u/s
320 Cr.P.C.. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner preferred a criminal revision and
the same was rejected and the present petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed.

4. The main grievance of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that in the alleged
compromise deed all the respondent-accused
are not the signatory, therefore, it was not
properly verified, therefore, the order dated
04.11.2023 is bad in the eyes of law.

5. Per contra, learned AGA for the State
has refuted the aforesaid contention on the
ground that as the offences are compoundable
therefore, there is no illegality in the order
impugned.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and from the perusal of
record it is to be clarified that Section 320
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. provides that the offence u/s 323
can be compounded by the person who has
been hurt, and it does not require the court's
permission and section 506 IPC can be
compounded by the person who is
intimidated,
therefore,
there
is
no
requirement of the signature of the
respondent-accused.

7. There is no illegality in the order
impugned, therefore, no interference is
required. Accordingly, the petition stands
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 86
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 10801 of 2024

Suraj ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Harsh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Nitin Kumar Srivastava

Issue for Consideration
The learned Magistrate has recorded the
conviction and awarded sentence in all the five
cases separately but did not order that the
sentence shall run concurrently. Therefore, the
petitioner is compelled to undergo 5 years
incarceration without being given an opportunity
of proper trial merely recording conviction, on
the basis of confession.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227 - The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 427 - Transactions related
to the offences is not the same -
Subsequent
sentence
should
run
consecutively
-
In
absence
of
any
direction as per general rule enunciated in
Section 427(1), the subsequent sentence
will not run concurrently but consecutively
- Petition dismissed.

Held- Petitioner has been convicted separately
in five different incidents having different case
crime
numbers
lodged
by
various
first
informants and all the five cases have been
decided by the separate judgments though, on
a single date, there is no illegality in the order
impugned. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Iqram v. State of U.P. and others, 2023(3) SCC,
Page 184 decided on 16.12.2022;Mohd. Zahid v.
State through NCB, (2022) 12 Supreme Court
Cases 426

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950- The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Separate incidents took place on different dates;
Petitioner
tried
separately
different
trials;
Subsequent sentence concurrently with the
previous sentence; Convicted separately in five
different incidents; Subsequent sentence will not
run concurrently but consecutively

Case Arising From
Judgments/orders dated 08.09.2023 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (North
Railway) Ghaziabad, in Criminal Case Nos.
2089/2022 under Sections 380, 411 arising out
of FIR no. 114/2022, 2308/2022 under Sections
379, 411 arising out of FIR no. 176/2022,
2140/2022 under Section 380 arising out of FIR
no. 212/2022, 2314/2022 under sections 382,
411 arising out of FIR no. 255/2022 and
2143/2022 under section 414 arising out of FIR
no. 267/2022 (State versus Vicky & others),
Police Station - G.R.P., Ghaziabad

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nitin Kumar
Srivastava