Tannu @ Mohd. Adeeb Usmani and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16786

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2506 of 2025

Applicant :- Tannu @ Mohd. Adeeb Usmani And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 B.N.S.S) with the following prayer:-

¶8

"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 9 of 2005 State Versus Tannu and others pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bahraich in respect of Crime No. 09/2005 U/S 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C Police Station Kaiserganj, District Bahraich and allow the instant petition in terms of compromise contained in ANNEXURE NO. 4 to this petition and order dated 11.02.2025 verifying the compromise [ANNEXURE NO. 5] to this petition] in the interest of justice, in the Case No.9803/06 pending before C.J.M. Bahraich."

¶9

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise deed dated 21.12.2024 (Annexure No.4) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure No.5) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure No.1), passed in Application U/S 482 No. 225 of 2025.

¶10

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

¶11

Considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 225 of 2025 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is found that the trial court, in pursuance of the order of this court dated 13.01.2025, has verified the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶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 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 :- 24.3.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tannu @ Mohd. Adeeb Usmani and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tannu @ Mohd. Adeeb Usmani and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Smt. Asma Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Lalita Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and Another

Priyanshu Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mohammad Israel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Naim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 5 Others

Rana Veer Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Lko. and Another