Tarun Parihar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28657

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3488 of 2025 Applicant :- Tarun Parihar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava,Romil Sagar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record bringing on record the certified copy of verification of compromise order dated 1.5.2025 annexed as Annexure SA-1.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

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

¶8

" WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal case no. 30037/2024, (State Versus Tarun Parihar and others) pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 27, Pratapgarh as well as impugned chargesheet dated 13.05.2024 and summoning order dated 17.08.2024 arising out of case crime no. 226/2023, under sections 498 (A),504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (D.P. Act) related to police station Mahilathana, District Pratapgarh as contained in Annexure nos. 1 & 2 respectively to this petition, in the interest of justice. "

¶9

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 11.2.2025 (annexure no. 4 to the application) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 1.5.2025 (annexure no. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 24.4.2025 passed in the present case.

¶10

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

¶11

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 24.4.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶12

It appears from the order dated 1.5.2025 that the trial court has verified the compromise.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Shravan

¶17

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

Tarun Parihar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Parihar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Lovelesh Bansal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Hafijur Rehman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt.. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Wanish Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shishir Singh Vs Dr. Richa Singh

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