Saleem v. State of U.P & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, present application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 307, 308
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 528
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. 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…
Judgment
Taking note of the facts of the case, this Court vide order dated 24.05.2023 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and the same is quoted hereinbelow:- "Sri Deepak Kumar, Advocate has filed valakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, the same be kept on record. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 are present. The attention of the Court is drawn towards the paper no. 43 of the paper book, whereby the parties are said to have arrived at a compromise. The section involved is 308 IPC, hence, the prayer is made to issue a direction for the trial court to verify the compromise deed of the parties, so that it may be placed before the Court for further orders. The parties are said to have arrived at a compromise. In the compromise deed, it has been mentioned that the injured sustained injuries due to fire works being enjoyed by the children there. The first informant, as per this compromise, is not supporting the prosecution version, hence, the chance of conviction are remote and bleak. To proceed with the case would be wastage of time of the Court and the parties itself, hence, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court within 15 days from today alongwith their compromise deed. If the parties appear before the trial court within the time stipulated, the trial court shall verify the said compromise deed, pass a verification order thereon and transmit the certified copy of the verified compromise deed alongwith the certified copy of the verification order passed thereon, to this Court within 15 days thereafter. List on 02.08.2023. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in Case No.64 of 2023 (State Versus Saleem) arising out of Case Crime No.098 of 2019, under Sections 308 I.P.C., Police Station Rohta, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. "
It appears from the order dated 06.06.2023 of the trial court that the compromise has been verified, 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.
Operative part
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, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao 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 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 arising out of Case No. 64 of 2023 (State versus Saleem), quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.
Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 SY SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 307, 308; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 27 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.