State v. Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9200324 of 2018; State Versus Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.585 of 2016, under sections- 308, 323, 325, 341, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., relating to the Police Station-Gosainganj, District- Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Lucknow, as well as impugned chargesheet dated 29.4.2017, submitted against the petitioners, under sections- 308, 323, 325, 341, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C., by the Investigating Officer in aforesaid case crime number, as contained in Annexure no.1 to the instant petition, in the light of compromise, attained between the parties, in the interest of law and justice." This Court vide order dated 03.12.2024 passed in the instant application referred the matter to the trial court for the purposes of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. The order dated 03.12.2024 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate who has filed power of attorney on behalf of the opposite parties No.2 to 5, which is taken on record. The present application has been filed praying inter alia the following relief: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9200324 of 2018; State Versus Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.585 of 2016, under sections- 308, 323, 325, 341, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., relating to the Police Station- Gosainganj, District- Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Lucknow, as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 29.4.2017, submitted against the petitioners, under sections- 308, 323, 325, 341, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C., by the Investigating Officer in aforesaid case crime number, as contained in Annexure no.1 to the instant petition, in the light of compromise, attained between the parties, in the interest of law and justice." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the informant has also acknowledged this fact. List this case on 20 January, 2025 as fresh. In the meantime, the parties will appear before the trial court on 17 December, 2024 or any other date as may be fixed by the trial court for recording fresh statements in support of the compromise. A fresh report in this regard may be submitted before this Court by the next date of listing. Till the next date of hearing, the impugned proceedings against the applicants shall remain stayed." It appears from the order dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit) 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. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 585 of 2016, 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. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9200324 of 2018; State Versus Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.585 of 2016, under sections- 308, 323, 325, 341, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., relating to the Police Station-Gosainganj, District- Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Lucknow, as well as impugned chargesheet dated 29.4.2017, submitted against the petitioners, under sections- 308, 323, 325, 341, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C., by the Investigating Officer in aforesaid case crime number, as contained in Annexure no.1 to the instant petition, in the light of compromise, attained between the parties, in the interest of law and justice." This Court vide order dated 03.12.2024 passed in the instant application referred the matter to the trial court for the purposes of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. The order dated 03.12.2024 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate who has filed power of attorney on behalf of the opposite parties No.2 to 5, which is taken on record. The present application has been filed praying inter alia the following relief: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9200324 of 2018; State Versus Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.585 of 2016, under sections- 308, 323, 325, 341, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., relating to the Police Station- Gosainganj, District- Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Lucknow, as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 29.4.2017, submitted against the petitioners, under sections- 308, 323, 325, 341, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C., by the Investigating Officer in aforesaid case crime number, as contained in Annexure no.1 to the instant petition, in the light of compromise, attained between the parties, in the interest of law and justice." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the informant has also acknowledged this fact. List this case on 20 January, 2025 as fresh. In the meantime, the parties will appear before the trial court on 17 December, 2024 or any other date as may be fixed by the trial court for recording fresh statements in support of the compromise. A fresh report in this regard may be submitted before this Court by the next date of listing. Till the next date of hearing, the impugned proceedings against the applicants shall remain stayed." It appears from the order dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit) 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. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 585 of 2016, 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. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench