Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25425

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2917 of 2025 Applicant :- Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Yadav And Another

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Verma,Vinay Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neetesh Kumar Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants today is taken on record bringing on record the certified copy of the order dated 18.4.2025 by which compromise has been verified annexed as Annexure SA-3.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

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

¶9

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside Charge sheet bearing 46/16 dated 29.01.2016 filed in Session Trial No. 1533/2021 arising out from case crime no. 629/15, U/S 308 IPC, P.S. Mohanlal Ganj, District Lucknow, further prayed that this Hon'ble court pleased to set aside the entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 1533/2021 arising out from case crime no. 629/15, U/S 308 IPC, P.S. Mohanlal Ganj, District Lucknow pending before Additional Session Judge / FTC-II, Lucknow as those legally barred by exercising the inherent power as provided to this Hon'ble Court U/S 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS in the interest of justice."

¶10

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 28.3.2025 (annexure no. SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 18.4.2025 (annexure no. SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 5.4.2025 (annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit) passed in the present case.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that they have no grudge or grievance against the present applicants now.

¶12

It appears that after considering the averments made in the present case and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 5.4.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶13

It appears from the order dated 18.4.2025 that the trial court has verified the compromise.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 AKK

¶18

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 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

Desh Raj Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Gaurav Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Tribhuwan Dutta Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Satyendra Bahadur and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another