Mohammad Kaifee Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8418

Court No. - 17

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1219 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohammad Kaifee Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd Zafar

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Shri Mohd. Zafar, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶7

The present case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. now under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. with the following main reliefs:-

¶8

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet no. A-292/2019 dated 28.09.2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC of PS Kotwali Rudauli District Faizabad as well as entire criminal proceedings initiated thereon so far as it relates to the petitioner, State Vs. Mohd. Zishan & other, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M. Faizabad as Case No. 12947 of 2019, to secure the ends of justice & to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

¶9

It is further respectfully prayed that till the disposal of the present petition further proceeding of the aforesaid case be stayed, in the interest of justice."

¶10

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 02.01.2025 entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 28.01.2025 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 21.01.2025 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 526 of 2025.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that he has no grudge or grievance against the present applicant now.

¶12

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 526 of 2025 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 21.01.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into

¶13

between the parties.

¶14

It appears from the order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure No.5) 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 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.

¶16

Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as

¶17

it is related to the the applicant.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Ashish

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Kaifee v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Kaifee v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. 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

Raju and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Devendra Pratap Jaiswal vs Shri Vivek Srivastava Secretary Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow and Another

Arti Prajapati and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secretary Lko.

Sidharth Singhal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sibiyan Alias Mohd. Shadman Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another