Allahabad High Court
Amit @ Priyanshu And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. … on 15 April, 2025
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21184 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10987 of 2023 Applicant :- Amit @ Priyanshu And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Tiwari,Mohd Taufiq,Sarvesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.
The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main relief(s):-
“For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 09.10.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 195/2019, case crime no. 58/2017, under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 316 IPC & 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila, District Lucknow, pending before Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC 2nd, Lucknow and allow the application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. for re calling of the witness/P.W. 4 namely Mahila Constable 2342, Pushpa Tiwari for cross examination in the interest of justice.”
It appears that on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide its order dated 09.11.2023 referred the matter to Mediation Centre of this Court so as to carve out possibility of amicable settlement of dispute between the parties. The same is quoted hereinbelow:-
“1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Session Case No.195/2019, Case Crime No.58/2017 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 316 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow.
3. On 8.11.2023, following order was passed:-
‘1. Vakalatnama filed by Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2, is taken on record.
2. Heard.
3. Put up tomorrow i.e. on 09.11.2023 at 11:30 AM.
4. On the next date, applicant no.1 as well as opposite party no.2 shall appear in person before this Court.’
4. In pursuance of aforesaid order, applicant no.1 as well as private respondent are present before this Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels.
5. Private respondent has no objection in the case matter is sent to the mediation center of this Court.
6. List this case on 4.12.2023 before the mediation center of this court and parties are directed to appear before the mediation center of this Court alongwith their original I.D.s.
7. Till the conclusion of mediation proceeding, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
8. The applicant is directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- before the Senior Registrar of this Court within three weeks from today, failing, which interim protection will not be available to him.
9. List this case before this Court after conclusion of mediation proceeding.
10. Registry is directed to release the aforesaid amount in favour of the private respondent. ”
It also appears that in compliance of order of this Court dated 09.11.2023, a SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT has entered into between applicant/husband and opposite party No. 2/wife on 08.08.2024. The Mediation and Conciliation Centre has sent its report along with the settlement agreement, which is on the record.
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 in the mediation proceedings as mentioned above, 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.
In view of above, the present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceeding, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to 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 :- 15.4.2025
Nitesh