Anant Sharma & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure no. 5) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 14.05.2025 copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure no. SA-1 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 29.04.2025 passed in the present case. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that he has no grudge or grievance against the present applicants now. It appears that after considering the averments made in the aforesaid case preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide the aforesaid order 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 14.05.2025 (Annexure No.SA-1) that the trial court has verified the compromise.

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 Sambhajirao 58, 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. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlement 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.

Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the 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 :- 27.5.2025 Ashish