Sushil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10098 of 2025

Sushil Kumar Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

¶7

		...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Bhupendra Chaudhary	Nath Tripathi,	Mithilesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 13

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

Sri Naved Alam, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s), learned Counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶11

The present application has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶12

"Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. dated 28-05-2016 lodged by the Complainant/Opp. Party No.2 registered at case crime No. 231 of 2016, U/s353, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow at contained in Annexure No.3 to this petition in terms of the compromise dated 18-05-2024, verified by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow vide its order dated 14-10-2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 2305213/2017, State Vs Sushil Kumar Yadav, as Contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 respectively to this petition, otherwise, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be made good in or any event."

¶13

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4952 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant(s), this Court vide order dated 18.09.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶14

It appears from the order dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure No.1) 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.

¶15

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

¶16

A482 No. 10098 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

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 Criminal Case No. 2305213/2017 , quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

¶19

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

¶20

December 10, 2025 Jyoti/-

¶21

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sushil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Kanojia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Vijay Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Ketan Singh @ and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Wajid Ali and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Others

Pramod Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ramdev Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another