Akash Kumar Nirmal Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

Akash Kumar Nirmal Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed; charge-sheet dated 12.07.2023 in FIR/Case Crime No. 0074/2022, cognizance order dated 26.02.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 26043/2024 'State Vs. Akash Kumar Nirmal' quashed as far as related to the applicant. Office/Registry directed to send the copy of the order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet dated 12.07.2023 in Case Crime No. 0074/2022 (Ss. 279, 304-A, 338, 427 IPC), the cognizance order dated 26.02.2024 and the ensuing proceedings in Case No. 26043/2024 should be quashed in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the verified compromise between the parties.

Court's answer

The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Ratio / Principle

In the given facts, based upon the settlement (compromise) between the parties and the nature of dispute/crime, the criminal proceedings could be quashed.

Key takeaways

Since the chances of ultimate conviction were extremely bleak and no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue, the present application was liable to be allowed.ratio¶12
The application was allowed, and consequently the entire proceedings (charge-sheet dated 12.07.2023, cognizance order dated 26.02.2024 and Case No. 26043/2024) stand quashed as far as related to the applicant.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 14 — Application U/S 482 No. 3351 of 2025 (S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS) allowed on 21.04.2025 (Manish Kumar, J.). Quashed, qua applicant Akash Kumar Nirmal: the charge-sheet dated 12.07.2023 in FIR/Case Crime No. 0074/2022 (Ss. 279, 304-A, 338, 427 IPC, Police Station Banthra, District Lucknow), the cognizance order dated 26.02.2024, and the entire proceedings of Case No. 26043/2024 pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow. Grounds: compromise dated 24.03.2025 between the parties verified by the trial court on 07.04.2025 pursuant to the High Court's order dated 02.04.2025 in Application U/S 482 No. 2718 of 2025; respondent no. 2 raised no grudge or grievance; chances of ultimate conviction 'extremely bleak'; inherent power under S.482 Cr.P.C. exercisable to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. Reliance placed on Muniswamy (1977), Bhajan Lal (1992), Gian Singh (2012), B.S. Joshi (2003), Ramgopal (2022), Laxmi Narayan (2019) and allied Supreme Court rulings.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22449

Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3351 of 2025 Applicant :- Akash Kumar Nirmal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

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

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

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

" Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the charge-sheet dated 12.07.2023 in FIR No/Case Crime No. 0074/2022, U/S 279, 304-A, 338, 427 IPC Police Station Banthra, DistrictLucknow filed by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner and cognizance order dated 26.02.2024 and also quashed the entire proceeding of Case No. 26043/2024 'State Vs. Akash Kumar Nirmal' Police Station Banthra, District Lucknow which is pending before the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. "

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 24.03.2025 (annexure no. 5) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 07.04.2025 (annexure no. 7) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 02.04.2025 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 2718 of 2025 (annexure no. 6).

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

It appears that after considering the averments made in the aforesaid case preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide the aforesaid order 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 07.04.2025 (Annexure No.7) that the trial court has verified the compromise.

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.

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

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

Order Date :- 21.4.2025/Nitesh

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