Abdul Rashid Khan @ Abdul Rashid and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43319

Court No. - 13

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5699 of 2025

Applicant :- Abdul Rashid Khan @ Abdul Rashid And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Nayak,Anil Kumar Tiwari

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Tiwari

¶7

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 and gone through the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s) :-

¶10

"The applicants above named most respectfully begs to submit that for the facts, reasons and circumstances as stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceeding of Session Trail No.43/2016, 'State Vs. Abdul Rashid & Another, Case Crime No. 14/2015, Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 I.P.C. and Chargesheet no. 19 of 2015 dated 23.04.2015, Police Station - Bewana, District - Ambedkar Nagar, in the interest of justice."

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that as per version of the F.I.R. which was lodged by the opposite party No.2 Mohd. Waseem, at Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar nagar, on 18.03.2015 as F.I.R. No.0014 of 2015, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 I.P.C., the applicants namely Abdul Rashid Khan and Khurshid Ahmad as also one Shafiq and one unknown person committed the crime. According to the F.I.R. Shafiq opened fire with rivolver and Khursheed opened fire with country made pistol (Katta) of 0.315 bore. Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that since no firearm injury was sustained to the opposite party No.2 and the injuries which were sustained by the injured persons were simple in nature and could be caused by hard and blunt object, and that the altercation took place between the parties on account of some trivial dispute/petty dispute, therefore the F.I.R. in question was lodged and since the dispute has now been settled between the parties and they have entered into a compromise and based upon the said fact, the applicants approached this Court by filing Application U/S

¶12

482 No.2271/2025 and considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 No.2271/2025 and the documents on record as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025 referred the matter to the trial court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and a perusal of compromise deed and the order dated 16.06.2025 of the trial court (Annexure No.4), whereby the compromise has been verified, would show that parties have settled their dispute as such the prayer sought in the present application be acceded in the light of Settlement Agreement/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 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

¶14

proceedings to continue.

¶15

Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite parties does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

¶16

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the order dated 16.06.2025 of trial court as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence the proceeding of Session Trail No. 43/2016 (State Vs. Abdul Rashid & Another), arising out of Case Crime No.14/2015, Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 I.P.C. and Chargesheet No.19 of 2015, dated 23.04.2015, Police Station - Bewana, District - Ambedkar Nagar are hereby quashed.

¶17

Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 28.7.2025

¶20

ML/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abdul Rashid Khan @ Abdul Rashid and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

Abdul Rashid Khan @ Abdul Rashid and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. and 3 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

Sita Ram Vs State of U.P.

Rajjan Lal Gautam Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow and 2 Ors.

Ram Raj Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rishi Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mansi Patel Thru. Her Mother Smt.Kusum Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Indian Farm Forestry Development Cooperative Ltd. Thru. Project Manager Shri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Vs Mangala Trading Company Thru. Its Proprietor Shri Mohit Kumar and Another