Mo. Shoeb @ Shoeb Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mo. Shoeb @ Shoeb Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS allowed; the entire proceedings in S.T. No. 190/2018 (charge sheet no. 467/2015 dated 19-12-2015 and summoning order dated 30.05.2016, arising out of N.C.R. No. 516/2015, Sections 323/308 IPC, P.S. Chowk, Lucknow) quashed as far as they relate to the applicant; Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in S.T. No. 190/2018 — charge sheet no. 467/2015 dated 19-12-2015 and summoning order dated 30.05.2016, arising out of N.C.R. No. 516/2015 under Sections 323/308 IPC, P.S. Chowk, District Lucknow — should be quashed in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023), in view of the compromise dated 06.03.2025 between the parties.

Ratio / Principle

Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; applying that principle together with the Supreme Court's observations permitting quashing of criminal proceedings on a settlement between the parties, the Court held the application liable to be allowed because the chances of ultimate conviction were extremely bleak and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.

Key takeaways

The trial court had verified the compromise dated 06.03.2025 by its order dated 01.04.2025, and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 stated that he had no grudge or grievance against the applicant.ratio¶13
The entire proceedings (charge sheet no. 467/2015 dated 19-12-2015 and summoning order dated 30.05.2016 in S.T. No. 190/2018) stand quashed as far as they relate to the applicant.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, 2023 — ALLOWED. The parties to N.C.R. No. 516/2015 (Sections 323/308 IPC, P.S. Chowk, District Lucknow) entered into a compromise dated 06.03.2025, which was verified by the trial court by order dated 01.04.2025 in pursuance of the High Court's order dated 19.03.2025; respondent no. 2 stated that he had no grudge or grievance against the applicant. Holding that the chances of ultimate conviction were extremely bleak and that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue, and relying on the Supreme Court's inherent-power and settlement jurisprudence (including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Ramgopal v. State of M.P.), the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Manish Kumar, J.), quashed the charge sheet no. 467/2015 dated 19-12-2015 and the summoning order dated 30.05.2016 in S.T. No. 190/2018 pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Lucknow, as far as they related to the applicant Mo. Shoeb @ Shoeb. Order dated 9.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:20115.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20115

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2459 of 2025

Applicant :- Mo. Shoeb @ Shoeb Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Arshad Jameel,Mohammad Naseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ayush Tandon,Mohd. Salman

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Shri Arshad Jameel, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record the copy of the verification of the compromise order dated 01.04.2025.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Mohd. Salman, learned counsel for the respondent no 2.

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

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly by pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Charge sheet no. 467/2015 dated 19-12-2015 in S.T no. 190/2018, N.C.R no. 516/2015, U/s 323/308 I.P.C, P.S. Chowk District Lucknow, styled as State.......... Vs. shoeb, Pending Before additional district and seccion judge court no. 6 Lucknow. As well as summomming order dated 30.05.2016 as contained in Annexure no. 1 and 2 to this application, during the pendency of this application"

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 06.03.2025 (annexure no. 5) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 01.04.2025 (annexure no. SA-2) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 19.03.2025 passed in the present case.

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

It appears from the order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure No.SA 2) that the trial court has verified the compromise.

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 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 is related to the the applicant.

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

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Ashish

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