Dinesh Pal @ Deenu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29071

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3536 of 2025

Applicant :- Dinesh Pal @ Deenu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Bahadur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prabhakar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, bringing on record the certified copy of the order of verification passed by the trial court on 05.05.2025, in pursuance of the order of this court dated 25.04.2025, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 of B.N.S.S. has been preferred with the following main prayer:-

¶9

" WHEREFORE it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Crime No.82/2020, Under section-147, 323, 504, 352, 336 I.P.C., Police Station-Krishna Nagar, District-Lucknow, State of U.P. Versus Gautam Kumar @ Munna and others pending before the Special chief judicial magistrate, Lucknow alongwith the charge sheet submitted by the Police of P.S.-krishna Nagar, in Criminal Case No.2524/2021, Case Crime No.82/2020, Under Section-147, 323, 504, 352, 336 I.P.C., Police Station-Krishna Nagar, District-Lucknow, State of U.P. Versus Gautam Kumar @ Munna and others pending before the Special chief judicial magistrate, Lucknow, in the interest of justice. "

¶10

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure no. 4) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure no. S.A- 1) in pursuance of the order of this court dated 25.04.2025 passed by this Court in the present case.

¶11

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

¶12

Considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C, the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is found that the trial court, in pursuance of the aforesaid order of this court, has verified the compromise entered into between the parties vide order

¶13

dated 05.05.2025.

¶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 :- 16.5.2025 DiVYa

¶18

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Pal @ Deenu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Pal @ Deenu and 3 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

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

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

Shishir Singh Vs Dr. Richa Singh

Irfan Latif Shaikh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt, Lko. and Another

Irfan Ahmad Alias Irfan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.