Jai Prakash @ Jai Prakash Mishra And 3 Others v. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 4
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Feb 2025
- Bench
- SAURABH LAVANIA
- Neutral citation
- 2025:AHC-LKO:9275
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, present application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 308, 323, 504, 506
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 528
Judgment
Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos.2 to 5 by Shri Jai Karan, Advocate is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 to 5 and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following relief (s):- "That for the Facts, Reasons and Circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge sheet & cognizance order dated 05/02/2013 and the entire criminal proceedings of Session's Trial No. 39/2015, State Vs. Rinku Mishra & Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 656/2012, Section 308/323/504/506 I.P.C., Police Station Shivgarh, District Raebareli, Pending in the Court of Learned A.S.J./ FTC III, Raebareli. " It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.9554 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.
It appears from the order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure No.4) that the trial court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Sambhajirao Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs.
Operative part
Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.39/2015, State Vs. Rinku Mishra & Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 656/2012, Section 308/323/504/506 I.P.C., Police Station Shivgarh, District Raebareli, pending in the Court of Learned A.S.J./FTC III, Raebareli, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 ML/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, present application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 308, 323, 504, 506; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 13 Feb 2025. The bench was SAURABH LAVANIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.