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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27924

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3739 of 2025 Applicant :- Anil Tripathi @ Anil Kumar Tripathi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶4

Shri Prince Verma, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Shri Naved Alam, learned counsel for the respondent no2.

¶6

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

¶7

" Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 119291 of 2022 (State Vs. Anil Kumar & others) Case Crime No. 28/2020 under Section 406, 420 IPC at Police Station Mal, District Lucknow and impugned order dated 10.10.2022 passed by ACJM Fourth, District Lucknow in the Case No. 119291/2022 (State Vs. Anil Kumar & others) Under Section 406, 420 IPC at Police Station Mal, District Lucknow contained as annexure no. 1 in the interest of justice. ."

¶8

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 15.06.2024 (annexure no. 6) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 18.10.2024 (annexure no. 6) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 25.09.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 8657 of 2024 (annexure no. 5).

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

It appears from the order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure No.6)

¶12

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 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 :- 12.5.2025/Ashish

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Tripathi @ Anil Kumar Tripathi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Shahrukh Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr.Vinay Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vikas Verma @ Vikash Kumar Verma and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Cheif Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Anuj Kumar Sharma @ Anuj Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ramakant Bajpai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Fahad Hasan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another