Sarju Prasad v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Sri Arun Chand Pandey, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party no. 2 and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "In the view of facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly and graciously be pleased to quash the Entire Criminal Proceedings of the Criminal Case No- 27028 of 2022 (old case no- 568/2022), State of U.P. Versus Sarju Prasad, pending before the court of Additional Civil Judge- I (J.D.) J.M., District-Raebareli, arising out of F.I.R. No- 317 / 2021, Under Section- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, & 506 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Mohanganj, District- Amethi, on the basis of Compromise Letter and Vertification Report dated- 22/08/2025 in respect thereof, as contained Annexure No.1 with Affidavit, in the interest of Justice.
" It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 No. 4728 of 2022, including aforesaid, and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 04.08.2025 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 22.08.2025 that the court concerned 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 2 A482 No. 8920 of 2025 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
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.