Irfan And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, 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 Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal…
Judgment
Sri Pawan Kumar, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2 in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
The present application has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the criminal proceedings of Complaint case no. 155 of 2015; Kamal Ahmad Versus Mohd. Irfan and others under section 394 IPC pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 1, Lakhimpur Kheri relating to Police Station Bhira, District Lakhimpur Kheri and summoning order dated
28.08.2015 may kindly be quashed in terms of compromise dated 04.03.2025 verified on
03.06.2025 by Appar Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 6, Lakhimpur Kheri, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that further proceedings of criminal proceedings of Complaint case no. 155 of 2015; Kamal Ahmad Versus Mohd. Irfan and others under section 394 IPC pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 1, Lakhimpur Kheri relating to Police Station Bhira, District Lakhimpur Kheri and summoning order dated 28.08.2015 may kindly be stayed during pendency of Present Petition before this Hon'ble Court. "
It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1387 of 2016 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 19.05.2025 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 03.06.2025 (Annexure No.1) 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. 2 A482 No. 8422 of 2025
Operative part
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 Complaint Case No. 155 of 2015, indicated in prayer clause, 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. September 26, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR 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: Accordingly, present application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 394; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528.
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.