Shukla @ Sheel Kumar Shukla And 4 Others State of U.P & Anr. v. Shiv Kumar Shukla) arising out of Case Crime No.593 of 2019 & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No.3606 of 2020 (State vs. Shiv Kumar Shukla & others) arising out of Case Crime No.593 of 2019, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station Tanda, District Rampur.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present offence is punishable with a maximum term of seven years’ imprisonment and is not categorized as a heinous offence. Inasmuch as, in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, Sections 406 and 450 are not co-existent, and proceedings cannot be taken against a person for these two offences simultaneously in one trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 06.05.2025 a direction was given to the court below to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned court below had verified the 2 NA528 No. 15574 of 2025 contents of compromise.

Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which has duly been verified by the court below vide report dated 01.09.2025.

Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the court below.

Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.

In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.