Ved Prakash Yadav & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 4
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
present application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 528
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. 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 Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of…
Judgment
Sri Mehdi Khan, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no(s).2, 3, 4 and 5 by filing his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 5, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the material brought on record.
The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the criminal proceeding of Case/ S.T. No.463 of 2024 (State Versus Munna Baba alias Bhaiya Lal Rawat and others) pending before the learned Court of Additional District Judge, P.C.-6, Lucknow arising out of charge sheet No. 1 dated 13.12.2023, having Case Crime No.729/2023, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 I.P.C. Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow as well as Charge Sheet No.-1 dated 13.12.2023 and summoning order dated 20.03.2024 on the basis of the compromise report and compromise deed prepared by the Court of Additional District Judge P.C. 6, Lucknow, in the interest of justice. "
It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.11287 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 12.12.2024 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 04.01.2025 (Annexure No.5) 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.
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 Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. 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 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 Crime No.729/2023, 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 :- 30.1.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: present application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323; 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 30 Jan 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.