Kuldeep Kumar & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party No(s).2 by Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate, is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s), learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No(s).2 and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief (s):- "The petitioners named above most respectfully begs to submit that for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Entire Proceedings arising out of Chargesheet No. 01/2018 dated 30.09.2018, under sections 354, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Raunahi, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad, as well as All consequential proceedings in Case No. 1462/2018, 'State Vs Kuldeep & others', arising out of Case Crime No.354/2018, under section 354, 323 I.P.C., Police Station - Raunahi, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad, in the light of compromise dated 22.11.2024, which has been duly verified by the Learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Ayodhya vide order dated 22.01.2025, through Annexure no.5 to this affidavit, in pursuance of order dated 10.01.2025, passed by this Hon'ble High Court in A-482 No.

186/2025, "Kuldeep Kumar & another Vs State of U.P. & another', in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that the entire proceedings in the above mentioned Case No. 1462/2018, 'State Vs Kuldeep & others', pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad, may kindly be stayed, during pendency of this petition. " It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 528 BNSS No.186 of 2025 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 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 22.01.2025 (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.

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.