Allowed¶14

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

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2025A482/3648/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of proceedings on verified compromise; Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS No. 3648 of 2025 allowed; summoning order dated 18.11.2021 by Additional Session Judge (POCSO Act) Court No. 45, Barabanki; Session Case No. 0978/2021; Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act; Manni vs. Jaseem and others; compromise dated 09.07.2024 verified by trial court on 17.04.2025 pursuant to HC order dated 27.03.2025 in Application 6598 of 2024; chances of ultimate conviction bleak; entire proceedings quashed qua applicant; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Judge Manish Kumar; order date 29.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside of the summoning order dated 18.11.2021 and quashing of the entire proceedings of Session Case No. 0978/2021 as far as related to the applicant (Manni and another). ¶14

Manni and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Setting aside of the summoning order dated 18.11.2021 and quashing of the entire proceedings of Session Case No. 0978/2021 as far as related to the applicant (Manni and another).

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the compromise dated 09.07.2024 verified by the trial court on 17.04.2025, the application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S. should be allowed and the proceedings of Session Case No. 0978/2021 (Ss. 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, in Manni Vs. Jaseem and others) arising from the summoning order dated 18.11.2021 should be set aside/quashed.

¶8

Court's answer

Considering the verified compromise between the parties, the nature of dispute/crime, and the Apex Court observations relied upon (inherent power under S. 482 Cr.P.C., akin to S. 528 BNSS 2023, exercisable to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice; proceedings capable of quashing on settlement in given facts), this Court held that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the application was allowed and the entire proceedings of the said Session Case were quashed as far as related to the applicant.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S. No. 3648 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 14; decided 29.4.2025; Hon'ble Manish Kumar, Judge): The applicant sought setting aside of the summoning order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Additional Session Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 45, Barabanki, in Session Case No. 0978/2021 (Ss.-354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, in Manni Vs. Jaseem and others), together with its proceedings. A compromise dated 09.07.2024 between the parties had been verified by the trial court on 17.04.2025 in pursuance of this Court's order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 6598 of 2024. Considering the verified compromise and relying on Apex Court observations (State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy; Bhajan Lal; Prashant Bharti; Rajiv Thapar; Ahmad Ali Quraishi; Ramgopal; Gian Singh; Gold Quest; B.S. Joshi; Jitendra Raghuvanshi; Madhavarao Scindia; Nikhil Merchant; Manoj Sharma; Laxmi Narayan; Narindra Singh; Manoj Kumar; Union Carbide; Manohar Lal Sharma; Supreme Court Bar Association) that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) may be exercised to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice and that proceedings may in given facts be quashed on settlement between parties, and finding chances of ultimate conviction extremely bleak, the Court allowed the application and quashed the entire proceedings as far as related to the applicant.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24574

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3648 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Manni And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Neeta Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Naresh Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Shri Ram Naresh Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 6 which is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

" Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass the order for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated-18.11.2021 passed by Learned Additional Session Judge (POCSO Act) Court No. 45, Barabanki in Session Case No. 0978/2021 Under Section-354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, in Manni Vs. Jaseem and others, including its proceedings, contained as Annexure No. 2 to this petition, in the interest of justice."

¶9

Learned counsels for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure No.6) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure No. 8) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 6598 of 2024 (Annexure No. 1).

¶10

Learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 has submitted that respondent nos. 2 to 6 have no grudge or grievance against the present applicant now.

¶11

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.6598 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 27.03.2025 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 17.04.2025 that the trial court has verified the compromise.

¶12

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

¶13

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 entered into between the parties as mentioned above, 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 applicant.

¶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 :- 29.4.2025 DiVYa

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manni and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 5 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

Sanju Sharma @ Dheeraj Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Jay Shankar Prasad Patel Vs Court of Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Pratapgarh and Another

Shiv Poojan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Anothers

Manni and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 5 Others

Naseem Alias Bhurri vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Muneef Khan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another