Arvind Kumar Pandey @ Arvind Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Feb 2025
- Bench
- SAURABH LAVANIA
- Neutral citation
- 2025:AHC-LKO:8079
Outcome
Allowed
present application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of…
Judgment
Sri Abhishek Vishwakarma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by way of filing his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the 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 entire criminal proceeding of ST No. 753/2012 US 323,332,353,364,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, Arisen out of Crime No. 603/2011, Police Station, Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, in terms of Compromise Data-5-09-2020 Between the Appellant and Respondent No. 2, which has been verified on 30-09-2024 by Special Judge SC/ST Act, any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case may also be passed in favor of the Appellant. It is further most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No. 753/2012 arisen out of Case Crime No.603/2011 pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in view of the aforesaid Compromise Deed dated 05.09.2024 entered between the applicant and the Opposite Party No.2."
It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.2936 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 19.09.2024 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 30.09.2024 (Annexure No.4) 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 Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. 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, 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 Crime No.603/2011, 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 :- 7.2.2025 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; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(X); 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 07 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.