Dilbahar Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9379

Court No. - 12

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1344 of 2025

Applicant :- Dilbahar Khan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

"The petitioner named above most respectfully begs to submit that for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings arising out of Charge-Sheet No. 03/2018, dated 21.06.2021, and Chargesheet No. 1/18, dated 07.05.2019, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda, as well as summoning order dated 07.09.2021 and 17.07.2019, passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda in Case No. 25061/2021 & 4636/2019, 'State Vs Dilbahar Khan & others', pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, arising out of Case Crime No. 433/2018, under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda, on the basis of compromise dated 08.07.2024, which has duly been verified by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, vide order dated 25.11.2024, through Annexure no 8 to the affidavit, in pursuance of order dated 23.10.2024, passed by this Hon'ble High Court in A-482 No. 9561/2024, 'Dilbahar Khan & others Vs State of U.P. & others'."

¶10

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 9561 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶11

It appears from the order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure No.8) 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 433/2018 , quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Jyoti/-

¶16

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

Dilbahar Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilbahar Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Javed Ahmad @ Javed and 3 others Vs State of U.P. thru its principal sec. deptt. of home and another and

Priya Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Nouman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abbu Sayyub @ Azad Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jagjeevan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Surjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others