Allahabad High Court
Ram Shankar And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homw Lko … on 5 June, 2025
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34728 Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4674 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Shankar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homw Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Sri Badrus Sahar, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the documents placed on record of this petition.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. now Section 528 B.N.S.S, 2023 has been filed for the following main relief:-
“Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be please to quash the impugned charge sheet No. 844/2014 dated 12.10.2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 917 of 2014, U/s 323, 452, 504, 354 I.P.C. related to P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow as well as summoning order dated 20.04.2015 issued by the Ld. Additional Civil Judge/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 24, Lucknow arising out of Criminal Case No. 692 of 2015 now 20000 of 2015 (State Vs. Ram Shankar & Another), in the interest of justice.
It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 692 of 2015 now 20000 of 2015 (State Vs. Ram Shankar & Another) pending before Ld. Additional Civil Judge/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 24, Lucknow.”
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR No. 917 of 2014 under Section 323, 452, 504, 354 IPC was lodged at Police Station-Thakurganj, District-Lucknow against the applicants, however, parties have settled their dispute amicably and have entered into a compromise for quashing of the proceedings arising out of aforesaid FIR. The said case is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge/Additional C.J.M., Court No. 24, Lucknow and accordingly an application was filed before this Court for quashing of proceedings bearing APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 2558 of 2018 (Ram Shnakar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another), which was connected with APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 1200 of 2017 (Priyanka Yadav And Ors. vs. State of U.P. And Ors.), which was in regard to cross case of the same incident, in which also parties had entered into the compromise. This Court, by means of the order dated 11.03.2025, had directed to the Court concerned to verify the compromise in the presence of the parties and permitted the parties to obtain the certified copy of the report as well as compromise. In pursuance thereof, the compromise has been verified by the Court concerned by means of order dated 02.04.2025, certified copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the present application. A copy of the compromise is also annexed as Annexure No. 5 to this application.
He further submits that in cross case also, the compromise was verified by the Court concerned by means of order dated 02.04.2025 and an APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 3844 of 2025 (Priyanka Yadav @ Pinki Yadav And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. And Another) was filed before this Court with verification report and the compromise in the said case and considering the same, this Court by means of order dated 19.05.2025 has allowed the application and quashed the entire proceedings of the criminal case in cross case arising out of FIR No. 918 of 2014 under Section 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC, Police Station-Thakurganj, District-Lucknow.
On the basis of above, the submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the proceedings arising out of aforesaid FIR pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge/Additional C.J.M., Court No. 24, Lucknow may be quashed.
Learned AGA appearing for the State and also counsel for the respondent No.2 do not dispute the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the applicants and submit that parties have settled their dispute amicably and have entered into a compromise, which has been verified by the Court concerned. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that respondent No.2 has no grudge or grievance against the applicants now, therefore, this Court may quash the proceedings.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of records, it is apparent that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 11.03.2025 in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 2558 of 2018 (Ram Shnakar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another), the compromise between the parties has been verified by the Court concerned in the presence of the parties, certified copy of which alongwith compromise has been filed before this Court.
Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and the fact that on the basis of compromise proceedings of cross case has been quashed by this Court by means of order dated 19.05.2025 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 3844 of 2025 (Priyanka Yadav @ Pinki Yadav And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. And Another) as also the observations made by the Hon’ble 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 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, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it relate to the applicants.
Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 5.6.2025/Vinay/-