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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16767

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2527 of 2025

Applicant :- Naim And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Shri Om Prakash Tiwari, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 6, 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 graciously be pleased to quash the impugned summoning order dated 20.10.2021 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District- Unnao in Session Trial No. 431 of 2023, State Versus Naim and others, F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0142 of 2021, Under Sections- 452, 323, 324, 308, 352, 504, 506, 325 1.P.C., Police Station- Safipur, District- Unnao and quashing of the entire proceedings of the Session Trial No. 431 of 2023, State Versus Naim and others, F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0142 of 2021, Under Sections- 452, 323, 324, 308, 352, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police StationSafipur, District- Unnao, pending in the Court of Learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, District- Unnao and also prayed for quashing of the charge sheet No. 169/2021 dated 11.07.2021 submitted by Investigation officer against the applicants, contained as Annexure No. I and 2 to this petition, in the interest of law and justice."

¶9

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise deed dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure No.4) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure No.6) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure No.5), passed in Application U/S 482 No. 11905 of 2024.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 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. 11905 of 2024 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 20.12.2024, 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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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