Vivek Kumar And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party no. 2 and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "Quash charge-sheet as well as the impugned summoning dated 01-04-2023 and order dated 15-10-2024 related with the case crime no. 0276/2022, under section -498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 D.P. Act & 67 I.T. Act at Police Station-Talkatora, District-Lucknow pending in the court of Special C.J.M. (Custom) Dstrict-Lucknow (State Vs Vivek Kumar and others), as contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this petition, on the basis of the verified compromise in compliance of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow, in the interest of justice. " It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 No.
7850 of 2025, including aforesaid, and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 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 26.09.2025 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. 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 2 A482 No. 8935 of 2025 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
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.