Bhavesh Oberoi Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17370

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2480 of 2025

Applicant :- Bhavesh Oberoi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivansh Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Shri Vivek Kumar Rai and Shri Ajay Kumar, Advocates have filed joint 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. /528 of B.N.S.S. with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Case no. 98158/ 2021, arising out of crime no. Crime no. 1386/2019 U/S 498A,323,504,506 IPC 3/4 D.P. Act P.S Gomti Nagar, Lucknow., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in pursuance of the charge sheet no. 1/2019 dated 14-122020 against the petitioners, and impugned order dated 13.12.2021 may also be quashed with a further prayer that pending decision of the instant petition any further proceedings in the Criminal Case no. 98158/2021, arising out of crime no. Crime no. 1386/2019 U/S 498A,323,504,506 IPC 3/4 D.P. Act P.S Gomti Nagar, Lucknow., Lucknow may kindly be stayed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise deed dated 18.11.2024 (page-14 of the paper book) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 11.12.2024 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 23.11.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 10609 of 2024 (Annexure No. 1).

¶9

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

¶10

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10609 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 23.11.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. It appears from the order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure No. 2) that the trial court has verified the compromise.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid facts, the fact that the dispute

¶12

between the parties is matrimonial in nature 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.

¶13

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

¶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 :- 26.3.2025 DiVYa

¶16

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhavesh Oberoi v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavesh Oberoi v. State of U.P. Thru. the 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

Mata Prasad Yadav @ Mata Prasad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Rambharose Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Pappan @ Avdhesh Kumar ( Avdhesh Gaur as F.I.R. ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Deptt. Hme Lko. and Another

Akash Mahajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Homes and Another

Prithvi Pal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Renu Alias Renu Rawat vs Sri Sachin Verma, Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Sarojini Nagar Distt. Lucknow