Aash Mohammad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18660

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2768 of 2025 Applicant :- Aash Mohammad And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyamendra Singh,Shiv Om,Tej Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Shri Rajeev Yadav, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

"1. To quash the charge sheet dated 15/08/2014 of Case No-018101/2015 Crime no 972/2013 under section 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C & 3/4 D.P Act Police Station Thakurganj District Lucknow, and order of taking cognizance dated 08/04/2015 registering the case as criminal case no.018101/2015 and summoning the accused and the entire proceedings of criminal case no-018101/2015 Crime no 972/2013 under section 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C & 3/4 D.P Act Police Station Thakurganj District Lucknow (State of U.P versus Aash Mohamamd & Others), Presently pending in the court of Learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D) Ct No-24 District Lucknow Fix For 29/04/2025; on the basis of Mutual compromise dated 25/02/2025 as contained as Annexure No-1, 2 & 4 of this petition."

¶8

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise deed dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure No.5) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure No.6) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure No.1), passed in Application U/S 482 No. 2257 of 2025.

¶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 No. 2257 of 2025 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure No.1) 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 21.03.2025 (Annexure No.6) that the trial court has verified the compromise.

¶11

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 , the dispute pertains to the individuals, due to which criminal proceedings were initiated. 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 3.4.2025/Mohd. Sharif

¶15

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

Aash Mohammad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aash Mohammad and 5 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

Shailendra Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Om Prakash Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Kamlesh Kumar @ Kamlesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Atul Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy.. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Vikas Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another