High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Nizam Ahmad @ Aftab Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Misra,Jai Prakash Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Viksit Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

1. Supplementary afÏdavit filed on behalf of applicant today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. The present case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of B.N.S.S. with the following main reliefs:- "(i) Quash the entire Criminal Case no. 12702/2024; Under Sections 386,420,411 I.P.C; arising out of FIR at Crime No. 0147 of 2022; dated 28.05.2022; titled as State of U.P-Vs- Nizam Ahmad, pending in the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI)AP, Lucknow, Police Station: Wazirganj; District -Lucknow with respect to the petitioner. (ii) Quash the Chargesheet No. 01; dated 03.09.2023; Under Sections 386,420,411 I.P.C; titled as State of U.P-Vs- Nizam Ahmad, pending in the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI)AP, Lucknow, Police Station: Wazirganj; District-Lucknow with respect to the petitioner, Arising out of FIR at Crime No. 0147 of 2022; dated 28.05.2022 which is marked as Annexure No. 1 to this petition (iii) Quash Order taking cognizance and issuing process dated 17.02.2024 passed by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI)AP, Lucknow with respect to the petitioner. (iv) To pass an order directing opposite party no. 2 to release the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of the petitioner alleged to have been seized from the possession of the petitioner."

4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 15.2.2025 (annexure no. SA-3 to the supplementary afÏdavit) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 19.4.2025 (annexure no. SA-1) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 8.4.2025 passed in the present case.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that he has no grudge or grievance against the present applicant now.

6. It appears that after considering the averments made in the present case and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 8.4.2025 passed in the present case referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

7. It appears from the order dated 19.4.2025 (Annexure No. SA-1) that the trial court has verified the compromise.

8. 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 settlement 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,

9. allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the the applicant. present application

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the S.H.O., Police Station-Wazeerganj, District Lucknow has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the applicant as security money for which the dispute exists between the applicant and respondent no. 3. The applicant has already given a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the respondent no. 3 and the same has been mentioned in the agreement entered into between the parties, therefore, the S.H.O., Police Station-Wazeerganj, Distrcit Lucknow may be directed to release the said amount in favour of the applicant.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the amount has already been given by the applicant to the respondent no. 3 and now nothing remains to be given by the applicant or due against the applicant and he has no objection in allowing the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant for releasing the amount by S.H.O., as such, the amount of which the dispute was going on between the parties, the applicant has already paid the said amount to the respondent no. 3, hence, the S.H.O., Police Station- Wageerganj, District Lucknow is directed to release the amount within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

12. OfÏce/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 AKK AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Nizam Ahmad @ Aftab Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Misra,Jai Prakash Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Viksit Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

1. Supplementary afÏdavit filed on behalf of applicant today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. The present case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of B.N.S.S. with the following main reliefs:- "(i) Quash the entire Criminal Case no. 12702/2024; Under Sections 386,420,411 I.P.C; arising out of FIR at Crime No. 0147 of 2022; dated 28.05.2022; titled as State of U.P-Vs- Nizam Ahmad, pending in the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI)AP, Lucknow, Police Station: Wazirganj; District -Lucknow with respect to the petitioner. (ii) Quash the Chargesheet No. 01; dated 03.09.2023; Under Sections 386,420,411 I.P.C; titled as State of U.P-Vs- Nizam Ahmad, pending in the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI)AP, Lucknow, Police Station: Wazirganj; District-Lucknow with respect to the petitioner, Arising out of FIR at Crime No. 0147 of 2022; dated 28.05.2022 which is marked as Annexure No. 1 to this petition (iii) Quash Order taking cognizance and issuing process dated 17.02.2024 passed by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI)AP, Lucknow with respect to the petitioner. (iv) To pass an order directing opposite party no. 2 to release the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of the petitioner alleged to have been seized from the possession of the petitioner."

4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 15.2.2025 (annexure no. SA-3 to the supplementary afÏdavit) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 19.4.2025 (annexure no. SA-1) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 8.4.2025 passed in the present case.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that he has no grudge or grievance against the present applicant now.

6. It appears that after considering the averments made in the present case and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 8.4.2025 passed in the present case referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

7. It appears from the order dated 19.4.2025 (Annexure No. SA-1) that the trial court has verified the compromise.

8. 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 settlement 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,

9. allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the the applicant. present application

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the S.H.O., Police Station-Wazeerganj, District Lucknow has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the applicant as security money for which the dispute exists between the applicant and respondent no. 3. The applicant has already given a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the respondent no. 3 and the same has been mentioned in the agreement entered into between the parties, therefore, the S.H.O., Police Station-Wazeerganj, Distrcit Lucknow may be directed to release the said amount in favour of the applicant.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the amount has already been given by the applicant to the respondent no. 3 and now nothing remains to be given by the applicant or due against the applicant and he has no objection in allowing the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant for releasing the amount by S.H.O., as such, the amount of which the dispute was going on between the parties, the applicant has already paid the said amount to the respondent no. 3, hence, the S.H.O., Police Station- Wageerganj, District Lucknow is directed to release the amount within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

12. OfÏce/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 AKK AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench