Laddan Khan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt of Up Civil Sectt Lko and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1167

Court No. - 11

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3176 of 2022

Applicant :- Laddan Khan And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt Of Up Civil Sectt Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Shiv Pal Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No.3, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Ram Bahadur holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as Sri Shiv Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 3.

¶8

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to set-aside/quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 13089/2020 (State Versus Salamuddin and others) arising out of charge-sheet No. 291/2020, dated 14.08.2020 filed by the investigating officer in Case Crime No. 277/2020, Under Sections-147, 323, 452 & 308 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station-Dargah Sharif, District-Bahraich pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich on the basis of compromise which was held on 13.04.2022 in between the parties and the same has been verified by the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bahraich vide order dated 22.05.2023, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the application for disposal of the petition on the basis of compromise, in the interest of justice.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that that this Court vide order dated 27.05.2022 referred the matter to the trial court for the purposes of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. It is further stated that in compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 27.05.2022, the order dated 22.05.2023 regarding verification of compromise has been passed by the Court concerned 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.

¶10

Learned counsel for the parties have also informed that in an

¶11

identical circumstance, one petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 12446 of 2023 filed for quashing the FIR bearing Case Crime No. 264 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 324 IPC, Police Station Dargah Sharif, District Bahraich, registered against the petitioners of this petition, has been allowed on the basis of compromise, thereby the proceedings were quashed. For the convenience, the order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 12446 of 2023 is quoted herein-below:

¶12

"Vakalatnama filed by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No.3 is taken on record.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶14

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for the following main reliefs:-

¶15

"WHEREFORE, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 448/2021 (State Versus Samiullah Khan and others) arising out of charge-sheet No. 264/2020, dated 01.08.2020 filed by the investigating officer in Case Crime No. 278/2020, Under Section-147, 323 & 324 I.P.C. pertaining to Police StationDargah Sharif, District-Bahraich pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich on the basis of compromise which was held on 13.04.2022 in between the parties and the same has been verified by the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bahraich vide order dated 22.05.2023, as contained in Annexure No. 6, 2 & 3 respectively to this petition, in the interest of justice."

¶16

It is stated that this Court vide order dated 27.05.2022 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3174 of 2022 referred the matter to the trial court for the purposes of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶17

It is further stated that in compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 27.05.2022, the order dated 22.05.2023 regarding verification of compromise has been passed by the Court concerned 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.

¶18

For the purposes of deciding the present application in the light of compromise, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court passed in the case(s) of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, 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.

¶19

Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party no. 3 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

¶20

After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the terms of compromise duly verified by the trial Court vide order dated 22.05.2023 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the same are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.

¶21

Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶22

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax immediately for necessary compliance."

¶23

Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present case may also be allowed on the basis of compromise which has already been verified.

¶24

For the purposes of deciding the present petition in the light of compromise, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court passed in the case(s) of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, 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.

¶25

Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Sri Shiv Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 3 could not dispute the aforesaid fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties.

¶26

After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the terms of compromise duly verified by the trial Court vide order dated 22.05.2023 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the same are hereby quashed in terms of the

¶27

compromise.

¶28

Accordingly, the present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶29

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax immediately for necessary compliance.

¶30

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶31

Order Date :- 4.1.2024 kkv/

¶32

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Laddan Khan and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt of Up Civil Sectt Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laddan Khan and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt of Up Civil Sectt Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Israr Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Harkesh Kumar Patel and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ibrahim and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Pooja Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Alok Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt.of Home and Another

Umesh Kumar Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another