High Court · 2025

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ajey Singh, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P as well as learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record. investigating ofÏcer

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 B.N.S.S) has been preferred for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 18589 of 2023 (State Versus Sushma Devi Maurya and others) arising out of impugned charge-sheet No. 01/2021, dated 07.11.2021 filed by applicant/petitioner No. 1 in Case Crime No. 0285/2021, Under Section-316 & 120-B I.P.C. and against applicant/petitioner No. 2 under section-316, 201 & 120-B I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station-Hardi, District-Bahraich which is pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich as well as summoning order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, on the basis of compromise held between the parties on 18.09.2024, to the accompanying afÏdavit, in the, interest of Justice. against

4. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 jointly submitted that vide order dated 18.12.2024 and 20.01.2025, passed by this Court in A-482 No. 8744 of 2022 and A-482 No. 9426 of 2022 respectively, a direction was given to the trial court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders, learned trial court had verified the contents of compromise deeds dated 18.09.2024 and 16.10.2024 vide orders dated 09.01.2025 and 28.01.2025 respectively. The copies of the compromise deeds and the orders passed by the trial court have been collectively enclosed as Annexure No. 5 to the present application.

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Considering 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.

9. Accordingly, present application is allowed.

10. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising of Case No. 18589 of 2023 (State Versus Sushma Devi Maurya and others) arising out of impugned charge-sheet No. 01/2021, dated 07.11.2021 filed by investigating ofÏcer against the applicant/petitioner No. 1, in Case Crime No. 0285/2021, I.P.C and against Under Section-316 & 120-B applicant/petitioner No. 2 under section-316, 201 & 120-B I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station-Hardi, District-Bahraich which is pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich as well as summoning order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich are hereby quashed.

11. OfÏce/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 DiVYa DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ajey Singh, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P as well as learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record. investigating ofÏcer

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 B.N.S.S) has been preferred for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 18589 of 2023 (State Versus Sushma Devi Maurya and others) arising out of impugned charge-sheet No. 01/2021, dated 07.11.2021 filed by applicant/petitioner No. 1 in Case Crime No. 0285/2021, Under Section-316 & 120-B I.P.C. and against applicant/petitioner No. 2 under section-316, 201 & 120-B I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station-Hardi, District-Bahraich which is pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich as well as summoning order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, on the basis of compromise held between the parties on 18.09.2024, to the accompanying afÏdavit, in the, interest of Justice. against

4. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 jointly submitted that vide order dated 18.12.2024 and 20.01.2025, passed by this Court in A-482 No. 8744 of 2022 and A-482 No. 9426 of 2022 respectively, a direction was given to the trial court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders, learned trial court had verified the contents of compromise deeds dated 18.09.2024 and 16.10.2024 vide orders dated 09.01.2025 and 28.01.2025 respectively. The copies of the compromise deeds and the orders passed by the trial court have been collectively enclosed as Annexure No. 5 to the present application.

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Considering 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.

9. Accordingly, present application is allowed.

10. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising of Case No. 18589 of 2023 (State Versus Sushma Devi Maurya and others) arising out of impugned charge-sheet No. 01/2021, dated 07.11.2021 filed by investigating ofÏcer against the applicant/petitioner No. 1, in Case Crime No. 0285/2021, I.P.C and against Under Section-316 & 120-B applicant/petitioner No. 2 under section-316, 201 & 120-B I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station-Hardi, District-Bahraich which is pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich as well as summoning order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich are hereby quashed.

11. OfÏce/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 DiVYa DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench