Ramroop and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Rahul Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶11

The present application has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶12

"For the facts reasons and circumstances as stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Complaint Case No.5526/2011 under section 147,452,354,323,504,506,427 I.P.C., relates to P.S. Kaiserganj District Baharaich, entitled as Rekha Singh Vs. Ramroop Singh & others pending before the learned Court of J.M. Court No.6, Baharaich.

¶13

It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present petition this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.5526/2011 under section 147,452,354,323,504,506,427 I.P.C., relates to P.S. Kaiserganj District Baharaich, entitled as Rekha Singh Vs. Ramroop Singh & others pending before the learned Court of J.M. Court No.6, Baharaich."

¶14

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.4695 of 2025 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 05.06.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶15

It appears from the letter dated 23.07.2025 that the trial court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.

¶16

Relevant portion of letter dated 23.07.2025 reads as under.

¶17

"ससम्मान िनवेदन करना है िक उपयुर्क्त यािचका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय , खण्डपीठ लखनऊ द्वारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 05.06.2025 से संबंिधत मुकदमा संख्या 5526/2011 रेखा िसह प्रित रामरूप आिद , अन्तगर्त धारा 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354, 427

¶18

A482 No. 4695 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

भा०दं०सं० , थाना कैसरगंज , िजला बहराइच के मामले में इस न्यायालय को िनदेर्िशत िकया गया है िक वादी मुकदमा श्रीमती रेखा िसह एवं अिभयुक्तगण रामरूप आिद द्वारा संिस्थत सुलहनामा सत्यािपत कर उसकी अनुपालन आख्या के साथ माननीय न्यायालय को प्रेिषत भेजा जाये।

¶21

माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन में उक्त पक्षकार िदनांक 18.06.2025 को इस न्यायालय में व्यिक्तगत रूप से उपिस्थत हुए , उनको सुलहनामा की शतेर्ं पढ़कर सुनाने व समझाने के बाद उनकी सहमित पर सुलहनामा सत्यािपत िकया गया है। सत्यािपत सुलहनामा की प्रमािणत प्रित अनुपालन आख्या के साथ संलग्न कर माननीय न्यायालय को प्रेिषत की जा रही है।

¶22

अनुपालन आख्या माननीय न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करने की कृपा की जाये।"

¶23

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 settlements 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 arising out of Complaint Case No.5526/2011 , quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

¶24

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

¶25

September 3, 2025 Anand/-

¶26

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶27

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

Ramroop and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramroop and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. 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

Juvenile of Case Crime No. 517/2024 Thru. His Natural Guardian Mother Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin . Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shrimati Jagpati and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Virendra Pratap Sen (Titu in Complaint ) and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Harsh Singh and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Bablu @ Chandra Shekhar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others