High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ayush Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings including Session Trial No. 980 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 251 of 2015, FIR No. 0212 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 IPC, P.S.-Madiyaon, District-Lucknow.

3. It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 No. 1911 of 2025 connected with Application U/S 482 No. 2092 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 06.03.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. The order dated 06.03.2025 is extracted hereinunder:- "1. With the consent of the parties, both the application(s) are being disposed of by means of this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3. APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 1911 of 2025 has been filed seeking following main relief :- "to quash the impugned criminal proceeding in Session Trial no. 980/2016, arising out of case crime no. 251/2015, FIR No.0212/2015, U/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 I.P.C., at P.S- Madiyaon, District Lucknow, may kindly be decided in terms of compromise, between the O.P. no. 2 and 3 and the Petitioners they have entered into compromise and they have settled their dispute outside the court as such, they do not want to contest the case further. Annexed as Annexure No.3."

4. APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 2092 of 2025 has been filed seeking following main relief :- "to quash the entire proceedings of S.T No. 461 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.: 256 of 2015, State V/s Chintamani Pandey and Another, Under- Section 147,148,149,307,452 and 506 Indian. Penal. Code., Police Station: Madiaon, District: Lucknow., Pending in the court of ADJ-6, District: Lucknow., and also stay the operation and implementation of the impugned Cognizance order and Summoning Order issued dated 18.08.2015 passed against the petitioners, by the Learned ADJ-6-th, District- Lucknow as Contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Petition, during the pendency of the petition, in the interest of Law and Justice."

5. It is stated that the applicant nos. 1 to 3 namely Sanket Verma @ Anil Verma, Prateek Verma, Rohit Verma and the opposite party no. 2 and 3 namely Smt. Sheela Pandey and Kaushal Pandey in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 1911 of 2025 as also the applicant nos. 1 and 2 namely Chintamani Pandey S/o Daya Ram Pandey and Kuldeep Rawat @ Kuldeep S/o Chet Ram Rawat and private-opposite parties no. 2 and 3 namely Smt. Prabhawati Devi @ Smt. Prabhawati Verma and Prateek Verma in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 2092 of 2025 were/are neighbours as these persons were/are resident of Preetinagar, Dudauli, Sitapur Road, Madiaon, District - Lucknow and this fact is evident from the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 251 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 452 and 506 IPC lodged on 18.05.2015 by the opposite party no. 1 in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 1911 of 2025 as also from the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 256 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 506 IPC lodged on 22.05.2015 by opposite party no. 2 in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2092 of 2025 on 08.08.2015 at Police Station: Madiaon, District: Lucknow.

6. It is further stated that in fact on account of trivial/petty dispute between the parties both the side lodged the FIR against each other which were registered as Case Crime No. 251 of 2015 and Case Crime No. 256 of 2015.

7. It is further stated that injury report of the injured Kaushal Pandey in Case Crime No. 251 of 2015, annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1911 of 2025 indicates that this injured sustained multiple laceration over head but this injury was not fatal and could be caused in altercation between the parties.

8. It is also stated that a perusal of the injury report of the injured Prateek Verma in Case Crime No. 256 of 2015, annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2092 of 2025 would show that all the injuries are simple in nature and could be caused by the hard and blunt object.

9. It is stated that during the pendency of the criminal cases in issue both the parties, who are neighbours have settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise. In APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 1911 of 2025, the compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 5 and in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 2092 of 2025, the same is annexed as Annexure No. 5. As such, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, the proceedings in issue are liable to be quashed.

10. It is also stated that presently parties are living peacefully in the vicinity and they are in cordial relations.

11. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Trial Court as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

12. Considering the aforesaid, these applications are disposed of finally in following terms:- (i) The parties to the proceedings in issue shall appear and file the compromise before the concerned Court within four week's from today. (ii) If the parties appear before the concerned Court in terms of above, the concerned Court shall proceed to verify the compromise between the parties to the proceedings and prepare a report to the same effect and the original compromise deed be made part of record. (iii) The concerned Court shall conclude the process of verification of compromise within two week's from the date of production of copy of this order. (iv) The concerned Court shall permit the parties to the proceedings to obtain the certified copy of the report as well as compromise deed. (v) It shall be open to the applicant(s) to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. (vi) Office is directed to provide original compromise to the counsel for the applicant(s), after retaining its photocopy on record. It is for the purposes for its verification by the concerned Court. (vii) For a period of eight weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case."

4. Thereafter, this Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the averments made in the APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 4970 of 2025, quashed the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2015 vide its order dated 12.06.2025, which reads as under:- "1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 is taken on record.

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

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of S.T. No.461 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.256 of 2015, State vs. Chaintamani Pandey and another under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Madiaon, District Lucknow as well as impugned cognizance order and summoning order dated 18.08.2015 passed by learned ADJ-6th, District Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 06.03.2025 a direction was given to the court concerned to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned court concerned had verified the contents of compromise.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which has duly been verified by the court concerned vide report/order dated 05.04.2025

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and proceedings of S.T. No.461 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.256 of 2015, State vs. Chaintamani Pandey and another under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Madiaon, District Lucknow as well as impugned cognizance order and summoning order dated 18.08.2015 passed by learned ADJ-6th, District Lucknow are hereby quashed.

10. Office is directed to communicate this order to learned trial Court, forthwith."

5. It appears from the order dated 08.04.2025 that the court concerned 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.

6. 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. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 251 of 2015, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

7. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Vinay/- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ayush Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings including Session Trial No. 980 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 251 of 2015, FIR No. 0212 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 IPC, P.S.-Madiyaon, District-Lucknow.

3. It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 No. 1911 of 2025 connected with Application U/S 482 No. 2092 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 06.03.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. The order dated 06.03.2025 is extracted hereinunder:- "1. With the consent of the parties, both the application(s) are being disposed of by means of this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3. APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 1911 of 2025 has been filed seeking following main relief :- "to quash the impugned criminal proceeding in Session Trial no. 980/2016, arising out of case crime no. 251/2015, FIR No.0212/2015, U/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 I.P.C., at P.S- Madiyaon, District Lucknow, may kindly be decided in terms of compromise, between the O.P. no. 2 and 3 and the Petitioners they have entered into compromise and they have settled their dispute outside the court as such, they do not want to contest the case further. Annexed as Annexure No.3."

4. APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 2092 of 2025 has been filed seeking following main relief :- "to quash the entire proceedings of S.T No. 461 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.: 256 of 2015, State V/s Chintamani Pandey and Another, Under- Section 147,148,149,307,452 and 506 Indian. Penal. Code., Police Station: Madiaon, District: Lucknow., Pending in the court of ADJ-6, District: Lucknow., and also stay the operation and implementation of the impugned Cognizance order and Summoning Order issued dated 18.08.2015 passed against the petitioners, by the Learned ADJ-6-th, District- Lucknow as Contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Petition, during the pendency of the petition, in the interest of Law and Justice."

5. It is stated that the applicant nos. 1 to 3 namely Sanket Verma @ Anil Verma, Prateek Verma, Rohit Verma and the opposite party no. 2 and 3 namely Smt. Sheela Pandey and Kaushal Pandey in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 1911 of 2025 as also the applicant nos. 1 and 2 namely Chintamani Pandey S/o Daya Ram Pandey and Kuldeep Rawat @ Kuldeep S/o Chet Ram Rawat and private-opposite parties no. 2 and 3 namely Smt. Prabhawati Devi @ Smt. Prabhawati Verma and Prateek Verma in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 2092 of 2025 were/are neighbours as these persons were/are resident of Preetinagar, Dudauli, Sitapur Road, Madiaon, District - Lucknow and this fact is evident from the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 251 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 452 and 506 IPC lodged on 18.05.2015 by the opposite party no. 1 in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 1911 of 2025 as also from the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 256 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 506 IPC lodged on 22.05.2015 by opposite party no. 2 in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2092 of 2025 on 08.08.2015 at Police Station: Madiaon, District: Lucknow.

6. It is further stated that in fact on account of trivial/petty dispute between the parties both the side lodged the FIR against each other which were registered as Case Crime No. 251 of 2015 and Case Crime No. 256 of 2015.

7. It is further stated that injury report of the injured Kaushal Pandey in Case Crime No. 251 of 2015, annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1911 of 2025 indicates that this injured sustained multiple laceration over head but this injury was not fatal and could be caused in altercation between the parties.

8. It is also stated that a perusal of the injury report of the injured Prateek Verma in Case Crime No. 256 of 2015, annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2092 of 2025 would show that all the injuries are simple in nature and could be caused by the hard and blunt object.

9. It is stated that during the pendency of the criminal cases in issue both the parties, who are neighbours have settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise. In APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 1911 of 2025, the compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 5 and in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 2092 of 2025, the same is annexed as Annexure No. 5. As such, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, the proceedings in issue are liable to be quashed.

10. It is also stated that presently parties are living peacefully in the vicinity and they are in cordial relations.

11. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Trial Court as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

12. Considering the aforesaid, these applications are disposed of finally in following terms:- (i) The parties to the proceedings in issue shall appear and file the compromise before the concerned Court within four week's from today. (ii) If the parties appear before the concerned Court in terms of above, the concerned Court shall proceed to verify the compromise between the parties to the proceedings and prepare a report to the same effect and the original compromise deed be made part of record. (iii) The concerned Court shall conclude the process of verification of compromise within two week's from the date of production of copy of this order. (iv) The concerned Court shall permit the parties to the proceedings to obtain the certified copy of the report as well as compromise deed. (v) It shall be open to the applicant(s) to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. (vi) Office is directed to provide original compromise to the counsel for the applicant(s), after retaining its photocopy on record. It is for the purposes for its verification by the concerned Court. (vii) For a period of eight weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case."

4. Thereafter, this Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the averments made in the APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 4970 of 2025, quashed the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2015 vide its order dated 12.06.2025, which reads as under:- "1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 is taken on record.

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

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of S.T. No.461 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.256 of 2015, State vs. Chaintamani Pandey and another under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Madiaon, District Lucknow as well as impugned cognizance order and summoning order dated 18.08.2015 passed by learned ADJ-6th, District Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 06.03.2025 a direction was given to the court concerned to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned court concerned had verified the contents of compromise.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which has duly been verified by the court concerned vide report/order dated 05.04.2025

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and proceedings of S.T. No.461 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.256 of 2015, State vs. Chaintamani Pandey and another under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Madiaon, District Lucknow as well as impugned cognizance order and summoning order dated 18.08.2015 passed by learned ADJ-6th, District Lucknow are hereby quashed.

10. Office is directed to communicate this order to learned trial Court, forthwith."

5. It appears from the order dated 08.04.2025 that the court concerned 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.

6. 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. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 251 of 2015, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

7. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Vinay/- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench